Transition from screen-film to digital radiography: Evolution of patient radiation doses at projection radiography

Radiology

Volumn 243, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 461-466

  Vaño, Eliseo ^a,b   Fernández, José Miguel ^a,b   Ten, José Ignacio ^a   Prieto, Carlos ^a   González, Luciano ^b   Rodríguez, Ricardo ^a,b   De Las Heras, Hugo ^a  

^a HOSPITAL CLÍNICO SAN CARLOS   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DATA BASE; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; FILM; HUMAN; IMAGE INTENSIFIER; KRUSKAL WALLIS TEST; MEDICAL SOCIETY; ONLINE SYSTEM; PARAMETER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RANK SUM TEST; REFERENCE VALUE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TRAINING;

BODY BURDEN; HUMANS; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RELATIVE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTIVENESS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SPAIN; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; WHOLE-BODY COUNTING; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 34247498104     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2432050930     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Managing patient dose in digital radiology: a report, of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 2004;34:1-73.
2. Peters SE, Brennan PC. Digital radiography: are the manufacturers' settings too high? - optimisation of the Kodak digital radiography system with aid of the computed radiography dose index. Eur Radiol 2002;12:2381-2387.
3. Weatherburn GC, Bryan S, Davies JG. Comparison of doses for bedside examinations of the chest with conventional screen-film and computed radiography: results of a randomized controlled trial. Radiology 2000;217: 707-712.
4. European Commission. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. Report EUR 16260. Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities. Published 1996. ftp://ftp.cordis .lu/pub/fp5-euratom/docs/eur16260.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2005.
5. Vano E, Fernandez JM, Ten JI, Guibelalde E, Gonzalez L, Pedrosa CS. Real-time measurement and audit of radiation dose to patients undergoing computed radiography. Radiology 2002;225:283-288.
6. Applegate KE, Tello R, Ying J. Hypothesis testing III: counts and medians. Radiology 2003;228:603-608.
7. SPSS Web site. http://www.spss.com. Accessed October 20, 2005.
8. Gray JE, Archer BR, Butler PF, et al. Reference values for diagnostic radiology: application and impact. Radiology 2005;235:354-358.
9. Vano E, Oliete S, Gonzalez L, Guibelalde E, Velasco A, Fernandez JM. Image quality and dose in lumbar spine examinations: results of a 5 year quality control program following the European quality criteria trial. Br J Radiol 1995;68:1332-1335.
10. Lu ZF, Nickoloff EL, So JC, Dutta AK. Comparison of computed radiography and screen-film combination using a contrast-detail phantom. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2003;4: 91-98.
11. Gray JE. Quality control in diagnostic imaging: a quality control cookbook. Baltimore, Md: University Park Press, 1983.
12. Performance standard for diagnostic x-ray systems and their major components, 21 CFR §1020.30, §1020.31, §1020.32, and §1020.33 (2005).
13. Saiani F, Ghirardi C, Rodella CA, Feroldi P, Chiesa A. Radiation dose in digital chest radiography: comparison among three technologies. Radiol Med (Torino) 2004;107: 401-407.