PATIENT DOSES IN COMMON DIAGNOSTIC X-RAY EXAMINATIONS

A local survey was conducted, to evaluate the radiation dose to adult patients who underwent diagnostic X-ray examinations. Patient-related and technical data were recorded, in 1504 patients, for each of the 11 individual projections, of the 7 most common examinations performed in an X-ray room, wit...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inRadiation protection dosimetry Vol. 184; no. 1; pp. 12 - 27
Main Authors Metaxas, Vasileios I, Messaris, Gerasimos A, Lekatou, Aristea N, Petsas, Theodore G, Panayiotakis, George S
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England 01.07.2019
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
Abstract A local survey was conducted, to evaluate the radiation dose to adult patients who underwent diagnostic X-ray examinations. Patient-related and technical data were recorded, in 1504 patients, for each of the 11 individual projections, of the 7 most common examinations performed in an X-ray room, with 1 digital radiography system. The patient entrance surface air kerma (ESAK) and the effective dose (ED) were calculated based on the X-ray tube output and the exposure parameters, as well as utilisation of suitable conversion coefficients, respectively. The 75th percentiles of the distribution of the ESAK and kerma area product (KAP) values were also established. The mean, median and 75th percentiles were compared with the national reference levels and the most common values reported at the European level through the DOSE DATAMED II project. The corresponding ED values were also compared with the average values reported for all European countries. The mean ESAK, KAP and ED values along with the uncertainty U values for chest PA, chest LAT, cranium AP, cranium LAT, cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, lumbar spine AP, lumbar spine LAT, pelvis AP, abdomen AP, kidneys and urinary bladder (KUB) AP were 0.12 (0.001) mGy, 0.66 (0.023) mGy, 1.01 (0.034) mGy, 0.69 (0.098) mGy, 0.72 (0.014) mGy, 0.63 (0.011) mGy, 4.12 (0.050) mGy, 5.74 (0.082) mGy, 2.57 (0.024) mGy, 1.94 (0.017) mGy, 2.47 (0.073) mGy, and 0.09 (0.001) Gy cm2, 0.38 (0.012) Gy cm2, 0.32 (0.009) Gy cm2, 0.27 (0.052) Gy cm2, 0.17 (0.004) Gy cm2, 0.21 (0.006) Gy cm2, 1.18 (0.018) Gy cm2, 1.86 (0.023) Gy cm2, 1.41 (0.012) Gy cm2, 1.27 (0.010) Gy cm2, 1.28 (0.038) Gy cm2, as well as 0.01 (0.0001) mSv, 0.05 (0.0016) mSv, 0.02 (0.0006) mSv, 0.01 (0.0012) mSv, 0.03 (0.0008) mSv, 0.03 (0.0006) mSv, 0.26 (0.0038) mSv, 0.17 (0.0022) mSv, 0.20 (0.0016) mSv, 0.23 (0.0018) mSv, 0.23 (0.0068) mSv, respectively. The 75th percentiles along with the uncertainty U values for chest PA, chest LAT, cranium AP, cranium LAT, cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, lumbar spine AP, lumbar spine LAT, pelvis AP, abdomen AP, kidneys and urinary bladder (KUB) AP were 0.14 (0.006) mGy, 0.88 (0.031) mGy, 1.22 (0.049) mGy, 0.94 (0.098) mGy, 0.93 (0.027) mGy, 0.78 (0.013) mGy, 5.16 (0.073) mGy, 7.24 (0.134) mGy, 2.96 (0.047) mGy, 2.59 (0.036) mGy, 3.07 (0.116) mGy, as well as 0.10 (0.0006) Gy cm2, 0.51 (0.017) Gy cm2, 0.37 (0.020) Gy cm2, 0.33 (0.040) Gy cm2, 0.23 (0.007) Gy cm2, 0.26 (0.011) Gy cm2, 1.50 (0.036) Gy cm2, 2.26 (0.035) Gy cm2, 1.61 (0.023) Gy cm2, 1.67 (0.017) Gy cm2, 1.56 (0.069) Gy cm2, in terms of ESAK and KAP values, respectively. The results were significantly lower compared with the national reference levels, the most common DRL values reported at the European level and other previously reported dose values. Patient dose surveys could contribute towards optimising radiation protection for patients, therefore, highlighting the necessity to increase the awareness and knowledge of the radiation dose in conjunction with the required image quality.
AbstractList A local survey was conducted, to evaluate the radiation dose to adult patients who underwent diagnostic X-ray examinations. Patient-related and technical data were recorded, in 1504 patients, for each of the 11 individual projections, of the 7 most common examinations performed in an X-ray room, with 1 digital radiography system. The patient entrance surface air kerma (ESAK) and the effective dose (ED) were calculated based on the X-ray tube output and the exposure parameters, as well as utilisation of suitable conversion coefficients, respectively. The 75th percentiles of the distribution of the ESAK and kerma area product (KAP) values were also established. The mean, median and 75th percentiles were compared with the national reference levels and the most common values reported at the European level through the DOSE DATAMED II project. The corresponding ED values were also compared with the average values reported for all European countries. The mean ESAK, KAP and ED values along with the uncertainty U values for chest PA, chest LAT, cranium AP, cranium LAT, cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, lumbar spine AP, lumbar spine LAT, pelvis AP, abdomen AP, kidneys and urinary bladder (KUB) AP were 0.12 (0.001) mGy, 0.66 (0.023) mGy, 1.01 (0.034) mGy, 0.69 (0.098) mGy, 0.72 (0.014) mGy, 0.63 (0.011) mGy, 4.12 (0.050) mGy, 5.74 (0.082) mGy, 2.57 (0.024) mGy, 1.94 (0.017) mGy, 2.47 (0.073) mGy, and 0.09 (0.001) Gy cm2, 0.38 (0.012) Gy cm2, 0.32 (0.009) Gy cm2, 0.27 (0.052) Gy cm2, 0.17 (0.004) Gy cm2, 0.21 (0.006) Gy cm2, 1.18 (0.018) Gy cm2, 1.86 (0.023) Gy cm2, 1.41 (0.012) Gy cm2, 1.27 (0.010) Gy cm2, 1.28 (0.038) Gy cm2, as well as 0.01 (0.0001) mSv, 0.05 (0.0016) mSv, 0.02 (0.0006) mSv, 0.01 (0.0012) mSv, 0.03 (0.0008) mSv, 0.03 (0.0006) mSv, 0.26 (0.0038) mSv, 0.17 (0.0022) mSv, 0.20 (0.0016) mSv, 0.23 (0.0018) mSv, 0.23 (0.0068) mSv, respectively. The 75th percentiles along with the uncertainty U values for chest PA, chest LAT, cranium AP, cranium LAT, cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, lumbar spine AP, lumbar spine LAT, pelvis AP, abdomen AP, kidneys and urinary bladder (KUB) AP were 0.14 (0.006) mGy, 0.88 (0.031) mGy, 1.22 (0.049) mGy, 0.94 (0.098) mGy, 0.93 (0.027) mGy, 0.78 (0.013) mGy, 5.16 (0.073) mGy, 7.24 (0.134) mGy, 2.96 (0.047) mGy, 2.59 (0.036) mGy, 3.07 (0.116) mGy, as well as 0.10 (0.0006) Gy cm2, 0.51 (0.017) Gy cm2, 0.37 (0.020) Gy cm2, 0.33 (0.040) Gy cm2, 0.23 (0.007) Gy cm2, 0.26 (0.011) Gy cm2, 1.50 (0.036) Gy cm2, 2.26 (0.035) Gy cm2, 1.61 (0.023) Gy cm2, 1.67 (0.017) Gy cm2, 1.56 (0.069) Gy cm2, in terms of ESAK and KAP values, respectively. The results were significantly lower compared with the national reference levels, the most common DRL values reported at the European level and other previously reported dose values. Patient dose surveys could contribute towards optimising radiation protection for patients, therefore, highlighting the necessity to increase the awareness and knowledge of the radiation dose in conjunction with the required image quality.
A local survey was conducted, to evaluate the radiation dose to adult patients who underwent diagnostic X-ray examinations. Patient-related and technical data were recorded, in 1504 patients, for each of the 11 individual projections, of the 7 most common examinations performed in an X-ray room, with 1 digital radiography system. The patient entrance surface air kerma (ESAK) and the effective dose (ED) were calculated based on the X-ray tube output and the exposure parameters, as well as utilisation of suitable conversion coefficients, respectively. The 75th percentiles of the distribution of the ESAK and kerma area product (KAP) values were also established. The mean, median and 75th percentiles were compared with the national reference levels and the most common values reported at the European level through the DOSE DATAMED II project. The corresponding ED values were also compared with the average values reported for all European countries. The mean ESAK, KAP and ED values along with the uncertainty U values for chest PA, chest LAT, cranium AP, cranium LAT, cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, lumbar spine AP, lumbar spine LAT, pelvis AP, abdomen AP, kidneys and urinary bladder (KUB) AP were 0.12 (0.001) mGy, 0.66 (0.023) mGy, 1.01 (0.034) mGy, 0.69 (0.098) mGy, 0.72 (0.014) mGy, 0.63 (0.011) mGy, 4.12 (0.050) mGy, 5.74 (0.082) mGy, 2.57 (0.024) mGy, 1.94 (0.017) mGy, 2.47 (0.073) mGy, and 0.09 (0.001) Gy cm2, 0.38 (0.012) Gy cm2, 0.32 (0.009) Gy cm2, 0.27 (0.052) Gy cm2, 0.17 (0.004) Gy cm2, 0.21 (0.006) Gy cm2, 1.18 (0.018) Gy cm2, 1.86 (0.023) Gy cm2, 1.41 (0.012) Gy cm2, 1.27 (0.010) Gy cm2, 1.28 (0.038) Gy cm2, as well as 0.01 (0.0001) mSv, 0.05 (0.0016) mSv, 0.02 (0.0006) mSv, 0.01 (0.0012) mSv, 0.03 (0.0008) mSv, 0.03 (0.0006) mSv, 0.26 (0.0038) mSv, 0.17 (0.0022) mSv, 0.20 (0.0016) mSv, 0.23 (0.0018) mSv, 0.23 (0.0068) mSv, respectively. The 75th percentiles along with the uncertainty U values for chest PA, chest LAT, cranium AP, cranium LAT, cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, lumbar spine AP, lumbar spine LAT, pelvis AP, abdomen AP, kidneys and urinary bladder (KUB) AP were 0.14 (0.006) mGy, 0.88 (0.031) mGy, 1.22 (0.049) mGy, 0.94 (0.098) mGy, 0.93 (0.027) mGy, 0.78 (0.013) mGy, 5.16 (0.073) mGy, 7.24 (0.134) mGy, 2.96 (0.047) mGy, 2.59 (0.036) mGy, 3.07 (0.116) mGy, as well as 0.10 (0.0006) Gy cm2, 0.51 (0.017) Gy cm2, 0.37 (0.020) Gy cm2, 0.33 (0.040) Gy cm2, 0.23 (0.007) Gy cm2, 0.26 (0.011) Gy cm2, 1.50 (0.036) Gy cm2, 2.26 (0.035) Gy cm2, 1.61 (0.023) Gy cm2, 1.67 (0.017) Gy cm2, 1.56 (0.069) Gy cm2, in terms of ESAK and KAP values, respectively. The results were significantly lower compared with the national reference levels, the most common DRL values reported at the European level and other previously reported dose values. Patient dose surveys could contribute towards optimising radiation protection for patients, therefore, highlighting the necessity to increase the awareness and knowledge of the radiation dose in conjunction with the required image quality.A local survey was conducted, to evaluate the radiation dose to adult patients who underwent diagnostic X-ray examinations. Patient-related and technical data were recorded, in 1504 patients, for each of the 11 individual projections, of the 7 most common examinations performed in an X-ray room, with 1 digital radiography system. The patient entrance surface air kerma (ESAK) and the effective dose (ED) were calculated based on the X-ray tube output and the exposure parameters, as well as utilisation of suitable conversion coefficients, respectively. The 75th percentiles of the distribution of the ESAK and kerma area product (KAP) values were also established. The mean, median and 75th percentiles were compared with the national reference levels and the most common values reported at the European level through the DOSE DATAMED II project. The corresponding ED values were also compared with the average values reported for all European countries. The mean ESAK, KAP and ED values along with the uncertainty U values for chest PA, chest LAT, cranium AP, cranium LAT, cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, lumbar spine AP, lumbar spine LAT, pelvis AP, abdomen AP, kidneys and urinary bladder (KUB) AP were 0.12 (0.001) mGy, 0.66 (0.023) mGy, 1.01 (0.034) mGy, 0.69 (0.098) mGy, 0.72 (0.014) mGy, 0.63 (0.011) mGy, 4.12 (0.050) mGy, 5.74 (0.082) mGy, 2.57 (0.024) mGy, 1.94 (0.017) mGy, 2.47 (0.073) mGy, and 0.09 (0.001) Gy cm2, 0.38 (0.012) Gy cm2, 0.32 (0.009) Gy cm2, 0.27 (0.052) Gy cm2, 0.17 (0.004) Gy cm2, 0.21 (0.006) Gy cm2, 1.18 (0.018) Gy cm2, 1.86 (0.023) Gy cm2, 1.41 (0.012) Gy cm2, 1.27 (0.010) Gy cm2, 1.28 (0.038) Gy cm2, as well as 0.01 (0.0001) mSv, 0.05 (0.0016) mSv, 0.02 (0.0006) mSv, 0.01 (0.0012) mSv, 0.03 (0.0008) mSv, 0.03 (0.0006) mSv, 0.26 (0.0038) mSv, 0.17 (0.0022) mSv, 0.20 (0.0016) mSv, 0.23 (0.0018) mSv, 0.23 (0.0068) mSv, respectively. The 75th percentiles along with the uncertainty U values for chest PA, chest LAT, cranium AP, cranium LAT, cervical spine AP, cervical spine LAT, lumbar spine AP, lumbar spine LAT, pelvis AP, abdomen AP, kidneys and urinary bladder (KUB) AP were 0.14 (0.006) mGy, 0.88 (0.031) mGy, 1.22 (0.049) mGy, 0.94 (0.098) mGy, 0.93 (0.027) mGy, 0.78 (0.013) mGy, 5.16 (0.073) mGy, 7.24 (0.134) mGy, 2.96 (0.047) mGy, 2.59 (0.036) mGy, 3.07 (0.116) mGy, as well as 0.10 (0.0006) Gy cm2, 0.51 (0.017) Gy cm2, 0.37 (0.020) Gy cm2, 0.33 (0.040) Gy cm2, 0.23 (0.007) Gy cm2, 0.26 (0.011) Gy cm2, 1.50 (0.036) Gy cm2, 2.26 (0.035) Gy cm2, 1.61 (0.023) Gy cm2, 1.67 (0.017) Gy cm2, 1.56 (0.069) Gy cm2, in terms of ESAK and KAP values, respectively. The results were significantly lower compared with the national reference levels, the most common DRL values reported at the European level and other previously reported dose values. Patient dose surveys could contribute towards optimising radiation protection for patients, therefore, highlighting the necessity to increase the awareness and knowledge of the radiation dose in conjunction with the required image quality.
Author Metaxas, Vasileios I
Messaris, Gerasimos A
Petsas, Theodore G
Panayiotakis, George S
Lekatou, Aristea N
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Vasileios I
  surname: Metaxas
  fullname: Metaxas, Vasileios I
  organization: Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, University of Patras, Patras, Greece
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Gerasimos A
  surname: Messaris
  fullname: Messaris, Gerasimos A
  organization: Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, University of Patras, Patras, Greece
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Aristea N
  surname: Lekatou
  fullname: Lekatou, Aristea N
  organization: Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, University of Patras, Patras, Greece
– sequence: 4
  givenname: Theodore G
  surname: Petsas
  fullname: Petsas, Theodore G
  organization: Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of Patras, Patras, Greece
– sequence: 5
  givenname: George S
  surname: Panayiotakis
  fullname: Panayiotakis, George S
  organization: Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, University of Patras, Patras, Greece
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30289498$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNpt0M9PgzAUwPHGzLgfevEPMByNCa6vFNoeCcNJ4sAIh3kipZQEw2BSdth_L2bTg_H0Lp_3kvedo0nbtRqhW8CPgIWz7PflslVH8MQFmgGjxHYo9iZohoFSm1OCp2huzAfGhAmXXqGpgwkXVPAZcl_9LArjzFolaZhaUWwFyWaTxNYq8tdxkmZRYG3tN__dCrf-JopHncTpNbqsZGP0zXkuUPYUZsGz_ZKso8B_sRXhbLBdYEVValEJoNp1OeWiwsA4QMkAMyGUYoWnCubJgmPuOpIzDQSgKkrNibNA96ez-777PGgz5LvaKN00stXdweSj9LiLOXdGenemh2Kny3zf1zvZH_OfT0fwcAKq74zpdfVLAOffGfMxY37KOGL8B6t6kEPdtUMv6-a_lS8MaHAf
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_1016_j_radi_2022_04_002
crossref_primary_10_1093_rpd_ncad294
crossref_primary_10_1093_rpd_ncac183
crossref_primary_10_4102_hsag_v26i0_1622
crossref_primary_10_3390_bioengineering9120811
crossref_primary_10_1002_acm2_13852
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_radphyschem_2024_111942
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_apradiso_2022_110451
crossref_primary_10_1097_HP_0000000000001778
crossref_primary_10_15415_jmrh_2019_52006
crossref_primary_10_1080_10420150_2024_2309201
crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph191711109
crossref_primary_10_1093_rpd_ncab018
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_apradiso_2021_110049
crossref_primary_10_1093_rpd_ncaa007
crossref_primary_10_1093_rpd_ncz172
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_apradiso_2023_110723
crossref_primary_10_1088_1361_6498_acfc51
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_radphyschem_2022_110541
crossref_primary_10_1097_BRS_0000000000004247
crossref_primary_10_2106_JBJS_19_01053
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00411_024_01080_5
crossref_primary_10_3390_diagnostics12081872
crossref_primary_10_54489_ijtim_v3i2_281
crossref_primary_10_1088_1361_6498_aba083
crossref_primary_10_1093_rpd_ncaa072
crossref_primary_10_1093_bjr_tqae218
crossref_primary_10_1088_1361_6498_ad3837
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_radphyschem_2020_108888
crossref_primary_10_17946_JRST_2020_43_3_155
crossref_primary_10_2174_1573405619666230322102011
crossref_primary_10_1088_2057_1976_ad16c1
crossref_primary_10_1002_hsr2_1424
crossref_primary_10_1186_s12909_021_02827_0
crossref_primary_10_3390_bioengineering10080970
crossref_primary_10_3390_healthcare11050686
crossref_primary_10_1142_S2196888824400037
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_radphyschem_2023_110990
crossref_primary_10_1093_rpd_ncaa114
crossref_primary_10_52560_2713_0118_2024_2_10_26
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_radphyschem_2022_110470
crossref_primary_10_1093_rpd_ncad286
crossref_primary_10_1007_s00411_022_01014_z
Cites_doi 10.1093/rpd/nci728
10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.11.002
10.4065/mcp.2010.0260
10.1093/rpd/nch343
10.1259/0007-1285-64-764-771
10.1259/bjr/01948454
10.1259/bjr/74571469
10.1259/bjr/56572915
10.1259/bjr/42893576
10.1093/rpd/nct069
10.1093/rpd/ncq102
10.1093/rpd/ncl137
10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.05.060
10.1259/bjr/32912696
10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.04.025
10.1259/0007-1285-68-816-1332
10.1093/rpd/nch562
10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.06.013
10.1093/rpd/nch432
10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.10.033
10.1016/j.radi.2013.09.002
10.1093/rpd/ncn013
10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.01.015
10.1093/rpd/ncv186
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Copyright_xml – notice: The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
DBID AAYXX
CITATION
CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
7X8
DOI 10.1093/rpd/ncy169
DatabaseName CrossRef
Medline
MEDLINE
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE
MEDLINE
PubMed
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitle CrossRef
MEDLINE
Medline Complete
MEDLINE with Full Text
PubMed
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList CrossRef
MEDLINE - Academic
MEDLINE
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 2
  dbid: EIF
  name: MEDLINE
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search
  sourceTypes: Index Database
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Medicine
EISSN 1742-3406
EndPage 27
ExternalDocumentID 30289498
10_1093_rpd_ncy169
Genre Journal Article
GroupedDBID ---
-E4
.2P
.I3
.ZR
0R~
123
1TH
29P
4.4
48X
53G
5VS
5WA
5WD
70D
AABZA
AACZT
AAIJN
AAJKP
AAJQQ
AAMDB
AAMVS
AAOGV
AAPNW
AAPQZ
AAPXW
AARHZ
AAUAY
AAUQX
AAVAP
AAYXX
ABDFA
ABDTM
ABEJV
ABEUO
ABGNP
ABIXL
ABJNI
ABKDP
ABNHQ
ABNKS
ABPQP
ABPTD
ABQLI
ABQNK
ABVGC
ABWST
ABXVV
ABZBJ
ACGFS
ACUFI
ACUTJ
ACUTO
ACUXJ
ACYHN
ACYTK
ADBBV
ADEYI
ADEZT
ADGZP
ADHKW
ADHZD
ADIPN
ADMLS
ADNBA
ADOCK
ADQBN
ADRDM
ADRTK
ADVEK
ADYJX
ADYVW
ADZXQ
AECKG
AEGPL
AEJOX
AEKKA
AEKSI
AEMDU
AEMQT
AENEX
AENZO
AEPUE
AETBJ
AEWNT
AFFZL
AFIYH
AFOFC
AFXAL
AFYAG
AGINJ
AGKEF
AGORE
AGQXC
AGSYK
AGUTN
AHGBF
AHMMS
AHXPO
AIJHB
AJBYB
AJEEA
AJEUX
AJNCP
AKWXX
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
ALTZX
ALUQC
ALXQX
ANAKG
APIBT
APWMN
ATGXG
AXUDD
AZVOD
BAYMD
BCRHZ
BEYMZ
BHONS
BQUQU
BTQHN
BTRTY
BVRKM
C45
CDBKE
CITATION
CS3
CZ4
DAKXR
DILTD
DU5
D~K
EBD
EBS
EE~
EJD
EMOBN
ENERS
F5P
F9B
FECEO
FLIZI
FLUFQ
FOEOM
FOTVD
FQBLK
GAUVT
GJXCC
H13
H5~
HAR
HW0
HZ~
IOX
J21
JXSIZ
KAQDR
KBUDW
KOP
KSI
KSN
M-Z
MHKGH
N9A
NGC
NMDNZ
NOMLY
NOYVH
NU-
O9-
OAUYM
OAWHX
OCZFY
ODMLO
OJQWA
OJZSN
OPAEJ
OVD
OWPYF
P2P
PAFKI
PEELM
Q1.
Q5Y
RD5
RNS
ROL
ROX
ROZ
RUSNO
RW1
RXO
SV3
TEORI
TJP
TJX
X7H
YAYTL
YKOAZ
YXANX
ZKX
~91
ADJQC
ADRIX
AFXEN
CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
M49
NPM
7X8
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c287t-517bfde9f914e558489f017811d710799cc7b6cb76ab80853a87e1211fbde823
ISSN 0144-8420
1742-3406
IngestDate Fri Jul 11 00:32:21 EDT 2025
Wed Feb 19 02:32:00 EST 2025
Tue Jul 01 01:29:26 EDT 2025
Thu Apr 24 22:51:12 EDT 2025
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 1
Language English
License https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model
The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
LinkModel OpenURL
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c287t-517bfde9f914e558489f017811d710799cc7b6cb76ab80853a87e1211fbde823
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
PMID 30289498
PQID 2116850883
PQPubID 23479
PageCount 16
ParticipantIDs proquest_miscellaneous_2116850883
pubmed_primary_30289498
crossref_primary_10_1093_rpd_ncy169
crossref_citationtrail_10_1093_rpd_ncy169
ProviderPackageCode CITATION
AAYXX
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2019-07-01
2019-Jul-01
20190701
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2019-07-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 07
  year: 2019
  text: 2019-07-01
  day: 01
PublicationDecade 2010
PublicationPlace England
PublicationPlace_xml – name: England
PublicationTitle Radiation protection dosimetry
PublicationTitleAlternate Radiat Prot Dosimetry
PublicationYear 2019
References (2019072512300520100_ncy169C44) 2018
Honey (2019072512300520100_ncy169C38) 2005; 78
Wall (2019072512300520100_ncy169C30) 2011
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (2019072512300520100_ncy169C1) 2010
International Commission on Radiological Protection (2019072512300520100_ncy169C12) 2007
Vano (2019072512300520100_ncy169C40) 1995; 68
Ziliukas (2019072512300520100_ncy169C24) 2010; 139
Elshiekh (2019072512300520100_ncy169C29) 2015; 165
Malone (2019072512300520100_ncy169C45) 2012; 85
Blanco (2019072512300520100_ncy169C22) 2013; 156
International Atomic Energy Agency (2019072512300520100_ncy169C37) 2007
Hart (2019072512300520100_ncy169C41) 1991; 64
International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (2019072512300520100_ncy169C20) 2005
Zetteberg (2019072512300520100_ncy169C8) 2011; 84
Compagnone (2019072512300520100_ncy169C27) 2005; 113
Simeonov (2019072512300520100_ncy169C43) 2017; 41
European Commission (2019072512300520100_ncy169C16) 1999
Roch (2019072512300520100_ncy169C32) 2018; 98
Samei (2019072512300520100_ncy169C5) 2005; 114
Lin (2019072512300520100_ncy169C10) 2010; 85
International Atomic Energy Agency (2019072512300520100_ncy169C15) 1996
(2019072512300520100_ncy169C2) 2014
(2019072512300520100_ncy169C36) 2018
Fitousi (2019072512300520100_ncy169C9) 2017; 44
International Commission on Radiological Protection (2019072512300520100_ncy169C13) 2004
(2019072512300520100_ncy169C35) 2018
Greek Atomic Energy Commission (2019072512300520100_ncy169C42)
Faggioni (2019072512300520100_ncy169C31) 2017; 86
Ceijer (2019072512300520100_ncy169C39) 2009; 82
European Commission (2019072512300520100_ncy169C21) 2014
European Commission (2019072512300520100_ncy169C19) 2008
Compagnone (2019072512300520100_ncy169C25) 2008; 129
Carmichael (2019072512300520100_ncy169C17) 1996
Suliman (2019072512300520100_ncy169C26) 2007; 123
Hall (2019072512300520100_ncy169C3) 2008; 81
Kawashima (2019072512300520100_ncy169C7) 2017; 34
Hart (2019072512300520100_ncy169C23) 2012
International Commission on Radiological Protection (2019072512300520100_ncy169C11) 2007
Tapiovaara (2019072512300520100_ncy169C34) 2008
Harding (2019072512300520100_ncy169C6) 2014; 20
International Commission on Radiological Protection (2019072512300520100_ncy169C18) 2017
International Commission on Radiological Protection (2019072512300520100_ncy169C14) 1991
Uffmann (2019072512300520100_ncy169C33) 2009; 72
Busch (2019072512300520100_ncy169C4) 2006; 117
Aroua (2019072512300520100_ncy169C28) 2004; 111
References_xml – volume: 117
  start-page: 143
  year: 2006
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C4
  article-title: Image quality and dose management in digital radiography: a new paradigm for optimization
  publication-title: Rad. Prot. Dosimetry
  doi: 10.1093/rpd/nci728
– volume: 98
  start-page: 68
  year: 2018
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C32
  article-title: Using diagnostic reference levels to evaluate the improvement of patient dose optimisation and the influence of recent technologies in radiography and computed tomography
  publication-title: Eur. J. Radiol.
  doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.11.002
– volume: 85
  start-page: 1142
  year: 2010
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C10
  article-title: Concise review for physicians. Radiation risk from medical imaging
  publication-title: Mayo Clin. Proc.
  doi: 10.4065/mcp.2010.0260
– year: 2007
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C37
– year: 2004
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C13
– year: 2012
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C23
– year: 2014
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C2
– year: 1999
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C16
– volume: 111
  start-page: 289
  year: 2004
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C28
  article-title: Adult reference levels in diagnostic and interventional radiology for temporary use in Switzerland
  publication-title: Rad. Prot. Dosimetry
  doi: 10.1093/rpd/nch343
– year: 2018
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C36
– year: 2008
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C34
– volume: 64
  start-page: 771
  year: 1991
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C41
  article-title: The significant of patient weight when comparing X-ray room performance against guidance levels of dose
  publication-title: Br. J. Radiol.
  doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-64-764-771
– volume: 81
  start-page: 362
  year: 2008
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C3
  article-title: Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology
  publication-title: Br. J. Radiol.
  doi: 10.1259/bjr/01948454
– year: 2007
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C11
– volume: 84
  start-page: 566
  year: 2011
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C8
  article-title: Lumbar spine radiography—poor collimation practices after implementation of digital technology
  publication-title: Br. J. Radiol.
  doi: 10.1259/bjr/74571469
– year: 2014
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C21
– year: 1996
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C17
– volume: 82
  start-page: 62
  year: 2009
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C39
  article-title: Optimizing the tube potential for lumbar spine radiography with a flat-panel detector
  publication-title: Br. J. Radiol.
  doi: 10.1259/bjr/56572915
– volume: 85
  start-page: 523
  year: 2012
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C45
  article-title: Justification of diagnostic medical exposures: some practical issues. Report of an international atomic energy agency consultation
  publication-title: Br. J. Radiol.
  doi: 10.1259/bjr/42893576
– year: 2017
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C18
– volume: 156
  start-page: 303
  year: 2013
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C22
  article-title: Determination of diagnostic reference levels in general radiography in latin America
  publication-title: Rad. Prot. Dosimetry
  doi: 10.1093/rpd/nct069
– volume: 139
  start-page: 313
  year: 2010
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C24
  article-title: Management of patient doses and diagnostic reference levels in X-ray radiography in Lithuania
  publication-title: Rad. Prot. Dosimetry
  doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncq102
– year: 2008
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C19
– volume: 123
  start-page: 209
  year: 2007
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C26
  article-title: Entrance surface doses to patients undergoing selected diagnostic X-ray examinations in Sudan
  publication-title: Rad. Prot. Dosimetry
  doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncl137
– volume: 72
  start-page: 202
  year: 2009
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C33
  article-title: Digital radiography: the balance between image quality and required radiation dose
  publication-title: Eur. J. Radiol.
  doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.05.060
– volume: 78
  start-page: 422
  year: 2005
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C38
  article-title: Investigation of optimum energies for chest imaging using film screen and computed radiography
  publication-title: Br. J. Radiol.
  doi: 10.1259/bjr/32912696
– volume: 41
  start-page: 87
  year: 2017
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C43
  article-title: Web-based platform for patient dose surveys in diagnostic and interventional radiology in Bulgaria: functionality testing and optimisation
  publication-title: Phys. Med.
  doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.04.025
– year: 2011
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C30
– volume: 68
  start-page: 1332
  year: 1995
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C40
  article-title: Image quality and dose in lumbar spine examinations: results of 5 years quality control programme following the European quality criteria trial
  publication-title: Br. J. Radiol.
  doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-68-816-1332
– volume: 114
  start-page: 220
  year: 2005
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C5
  article-title: A framework for optimising the radiographic technique in digital X-ray imaging
  publication-title: Rad. Prot. Dosimetry
  doi: 10.1093/rpd/nch562
– volume: 44
  start-page: 212
  year: 2017
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C9
  article-title: Patient dose monitoring systems: a new way of managing patient dose and quality in the radiology department
  publication-title: Phys. Med.
  doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.06.013
– year: 2018
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C35
– year: 1991
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C14
– year: 1996
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C15
– volume: 113
  start-page: 54
  year: 2005
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C27
  article-title: Local diagnostic reference levels in standard X-ray examinations
  publication-title: Rad. Prot. Dosimetry
  doi: 10.1093/rpd/nch432
– ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C42
– volume: 86
  start-page: 135
  year: 2017
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C31
  article-title: Awareness of radiation protection and dose levels of imaging procedures among medical students, radiography students, and radiology residents at an academic hospital: Results of a comprehensive survey
  publication-title: Eur. J. Radiol.
  doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.10.033
– volume: 20
  start-page: 22
  year: 2014
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C6
  article-title: Optimum patient orientation for pelvic and hip radiography: a randomized trial
  publication-title: Radiography
  doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2013.09.002
– volume: 129
  start-page: 135
  year: 2008
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C25
  article-title: Patient dose in digital projection radiography
  publication-title: Rad. Prot. Dosimetry
  doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncn013
– volume: 34
  start-page: 65
  year: 2017
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C7
  article-title: X-ray dose reduction using additional cooper filtration for abdominal digital radiography: evaluation using signal difference-to-noise ratio
  publication-title: Phys. Med.
  doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.01.015
– volume: 165
  start-page: 402
  year: 2015
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C29
  article-title: A comparative study of adult patient doses in film screen and computed radiography in some Sudanese hospitals
  publication-title: Rad. Prot. Dosimetry
  doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncv186
– year: 2005
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C20
– year: 2010
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C1
– year: 2007
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C12
– year: 2018
  ident: 2019072512300520100_ncy169C44
SSID ssj0027954
Score 2.4213712
Snippet A local survey was conducted, to evaluate the radiation dose to adult patients who underwent diagnostic X-ray examinations. Patient-related and technical data...
SourceID proquest
pubmed
crossref
SourceType Aggregation Database
Index Database
Enrichment Source
StartPage 12
SubjectTerms Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Female
Humans
Lumbar Vertebrae - radiation effects
Male
Middle Aged
Physical Examination - standards
Quality Control
Radiation Dosage
Radiation Monitoring - methods
Radiation Protection - standards
Radiography - standards
Radiography - statistics & numerical data
Reference Values
Thoracic Vertebrae - radiation effects
Young Adult
Title PATIENT DOSES IN COMMON DIAGNOSTIC X-RAY EXAMINATIONS
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30289498
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2116850883
Volume 184
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV3db5swELeyVpr2MnWfzb7EtL1MiDXEBuxH1GRrpkKqhk3ZEwJjpEhrqIBU0_76nbGBZOmkbi8IERuC78f5zr77HULvx8QjTGb3OJwyi3iZsBjFIyvNOSdcuNwZyWzkIHTPvpIvS2c5GNxsRS1t6vQj_3VrXsn_SBWugVxlluw_SLa7KVyAc5AvHEHCcLyTjC_8aDYNI3MyB61ozkLzdC51pDmZ-Z_D-SKCEV5al_53c7r0g5kivl1sm6OXkpmgQYDma5CnWVGtrkS9FR8s6uSnSvz6llSgRlZF1a-2BrKISrnSK-wlNLiCnztgnAuZorRpdFDZYKrf_bkQdZXoOCVRyJonutSXXoZoMp_aZYh2ZZJYlIzVJotQ2hT8bguTkburbskerpTy1PHUahpWjAF7Cl6RX5XXUqAw-9iqzssuj_Yf81sXdaj223EMvWPV9x46HIN7Afrx0J8E54veVWeOYoXXL9US2zJ8Ar1PVO9dU-Yv_kljp0RH6KF2MAxfoeURGoj1Y3Q_0CEUT5CjQWM0oDFmoaFAY_SgMRrQGNugeYqiT9Po9MzStTMsDj5wbTm2l-aZYDmziXDAyqQsB-VLbTsDm9JjjHMvdXnquUlKwezGCfWEpPvL00zQMX6GDtbFWhwjg2YedVzmpRl8vXZuJ042ysFK5VhkPMf5EH1oRyHmmldeljf5Ee-P9xC969peKzaVW1u9bQczBmUnd7CStSg2VQz_z6XSpcBD9FyNcncfLPfMCaMv7vSMl-hBj-JX6KAuN-I1mJd1-kZj4TdXhXW2
linkProvider EBSCOhost
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=PATIENT+DOSES+IN+COMMON+DIAGNOSTIC+X-RAY+EXAMINATIONS&rft.jtitle=Radiation+protection+dosimetry&rft.au=Metaxas%2C+Vasileios+I&rft.au=Messaris%2C+Gerasimos+A&rft.au=Lekatou%2C+Aristea+N&rft.au=Petsas%2C+Theodore+G&rft.date=2019-07-01&rft.issn=0144-8420&rft.eissn=1742-3406&rft.volume=184&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=12&rft.epage=27&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093%2Frpd%2Fncy169&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=10_1093_rpd_ncy169
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0144-8420&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0144-8420&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0144-8420&client=summon