» Articles » PMID: 24977137

A Survey of Organ Equivalent and Effective Doses from Diagnostic Radiology Procedures

Overview
Journal ISRN Radiol
Specialty Radiology
Date 2014 Jul 1
PMID 24977137
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The quantification of radiation risks associated with radiological examinations has been a subject of interest with the increased use of X-rays. Effective dose, which is a risk-weighted measure of radiation to organs in the body associated with radiological examination, is considered a good indicator of radiological risk. We have therefore investigated patient effective doses from radiological examinations. Organ and effective doses were estimated for 94 patients who underwent computed tomography examinations and for 338 patients who had conventional radiography examinations. The OrgDose (version 2) program was used for the estimation of effective doses. The tube potential ranges: 57 kVp to 138 kVp depending on the examination and patient size. The entrance surface doses have a wide range even for the same examination: 0.44-10.31 mGy (abdomen) and 0.66-16.08 mGy (lumbar spine) and the corresponding effective dose ranges 0.025-0.77 mSv and 0.025-0.95 mSv respectively. Effective dose for adult abdomen-pelvic CT examinations ranges 5.4-19.8 mSv with a mean of 13.6 mSv and for pediatrics ranges 2.1-5.5 mSv with a mean of 2.7 mSv. The mean effective dose for adult chest and head CT examinations are 7.9 and 1.8 mSv respectively and for pediatrics are 1.7 and 1.1 mSv.

Citing Articles

Multivariate Analysis of Effective Dose and Size-Specific Dose Estimates for Thorax and Abdominal Computed Tomography.

Shah M, Ahmad M, Khalid S, Qaseem S, Siddiqui S, Talib S J Med Phys. 2023; 48(2):210-218.

PMID: 37576100 PMC: 10419744. DOI: 10.4103/jmp.jmp_102_22.


Estimation of radiation doses and lifetime attributable risk of radiation-induced cancer in the uterus and prostate from abdomen pelvis CT examinations.

Shubayr N, Alashban Y Front Public Health. 2023; 10:1094328.

PMID: 36699908 PMC: 9868812. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1094328.


Retrospective study of patients radiation dose during cardiac catheterization procedures.

Osei B, Xu L, Johnston A, Darko S, Darko J, Osei E Br J Radiol. 2019; 92(1099):20181021.

PMID: 31045448 PMC: 6636266. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20181021.


Justification of radiographic examinations: What are the key issues?.

Vom J, Williams I J Med Radiat Sci. 2017; 64(3):212-219.

PMID: 28188698 PMC: 5587654. DOI: 10.1002/jmrs.211.


Exposure to low dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening and risk of cancer: secondary analysis of trial data and risk-benefit analysis.

Rampinelli C, De Marco P, Origgi D, Maisonneuve P, Casiraghi M, Veronesi G BMJ. 2017; 356:j347.

PMID: 28179230 PMC: 5421449. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j347.


References
1.
Compagnone G, Pagan L, Bergamini C . Local diagnostic reference levels in standard X-ray examinations. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2004; 113(1):54-63. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/nch432. View

2.
Jessen K, Shrimpton P, Geleijns J, Panzer W, Tosi G . Dosimetry for optimisation of patient protection in computed tomography. Appl Radiat Isot. 1999; 50(1):165-72. DOI: 10.1016/s0969-8043(98)00024-4. View

3.
McCollough C, Christner J, Kofler J . How effective is effective dose as a predictor of radiation risk?. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 194(4):890-6. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.4179. View

4.
Compagnone G, Pagan L, Baleni M, Calzolaio F, Barozzi L, Bergamini C . Patient dose in digital projection radiography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2008; 129(1-3):135-7. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncn013. View

5.
Ciraj O, Markovic S, Kosutic D . First results on patient dose measurements from conventional diagnostic radiology procedures in Serbia and Montenegro. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005; 113(3):330-5. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/nch469. View