Congress:
EuroSafe Imaging 2017
Keywords:
Physics, Acceptance testing, Plain radiographic studies, Fluoroscopy, CT, Radioprotection / Radiation dose, Radiation physics, Paediatric, Action 5 - Performance indicators for radiation protection management, Action 3 - Image quality assessment based on clinical indications, Action 2 - Clinical diagnostic reference levels (DRLs), Action 9 - Development of criteria for safe imaging procedures, Action 4 - Quality of radiological equipment, Action 3 - Optimisation, diagnostic reference levels, image quality, Radiation effects, Dosimetric comparison, Quality assurance
Authors:
J. Vilar Palop, J. Vilar, I. González Álvarez, I. Hernández-Aguado, B. Lumbreras
DOI:
10.1594/esi2017/ESI-0012
Description of activity and work performed
We performed systematic search on radiation dosimetry in radiology published from 2007 onwards through the Medline,
Embase and Cochrane Library Plus databases.
We also included studies backed by governments and/or scientific societies published or updated since 2007.
Only those studies that calculated the effective dose were included.
Starting from 900+ studies,
72 were retrieved for full review and,
finally,
27 articles and 5 websites were included [1].
Reported values and ranges of effective dose were gathered for the top 20 procedures as defined by the DoseDataMed European project for both adults and children.
We presented separately the data according to the ICRP weight used (ICRP 60 or ICRP 103) and divided the data into the four age groups recommended by DDM2 (<1,
1–5,
6–10 and 11–15 years old and adults).
A total of 378 values from the 20 procedures included were obtained,
280 (74%) using ICRP60 and 98 (26%) using ICRP103.
We classified the data according to the age group (<1 years,
1-5 years,
6-10 years,
11-15 years and adults).
The mean effective dose value was calculated for all age groups using ICRP60.
Due to the lack of data we only calculated values for adults using ICRP103.
Fig 1 shows our results for adults and those of two references for comparison.
Fig 2 shows our results for pediatric patients according to age group.
Figures 4 and 5 display graphically the main results for adults for CT and X-ray examinations.
See [1] for the full details of our investigation.