Dose optimisation of double-contrast barium enema examinations

Radiation Protection Dosimetry

Volumn 139, Issue 1-3, 2010, Pages 388-392

  Berner, K ^a,b   Bath M ^a,b   Jonasson, P ^a   Cappelen Smith, J ^a   Fogelstam, P ^a   Soderberg J ^c  

^a SAHLGRENSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^c VARBERG HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BARIUM SULFATE; CONTRAST MEDIUM; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; ENEMA;

ARTICLE; COLON; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; DOSE RESPONSE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

BARIUM SULFATE; COLON; COLONOGRAPHY, COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC; CONTRAST MEDIA; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; ENEMA; HUMANS; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 77953341308     PISSN: 01448420     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncq093     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Laufer, I. and Levine, M. S. Double Contrast Gastrointestinal Radiology, second edn. (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company) (1992). ISBN 0 721 656498.
2. Mettler, F. A. Jr, Huda, W., Yoshizumi, T. T. and Mahesh, M. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology 248, 254-263 (2008).
3. Martin, C. J. A review of factors affecting patient doses for barium enemas and meals. Br. J. Radiol. 77, 864-868 (2004).
4. Morrell, R. E., Rogers, A. T., Jobling, J. C. and Shakespeare, K. E. Barium enema: use of increased copper filtration to optimize dose and image quality. Br. J. Radiol. 77, 116-122 (2004).
5. Hansson, B., Finnbogason, T., Schuwert, P. and Persliden, J. Added copper filtration in digital paediatric double-contrast colon examinations: effects on radiation dose and image quality. Eur. Radiol. 7, 1117-1122 (1997).
6. Båth, M. and Månsson, L. G. Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: a non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation. Br. J. Radiol. 80, 169-176 (2007).
7. Thijssen, M. A. O., Bijkerk, K. R. and van der Burght, R. J. M. Manual: contrast-detail phantom Artinis CDRAD type 2.0. (Nijmegen: Department of Radiology, Radboud University: Nijmegen Medical Centre) (1998).
8. Tapiovaara, M., Lakkisto, M. and Servomaa, A. PCXMC-A PC-based Monte Carlo program for calculating patient doses in medical X-ray examinations. Report STUK-A139, (Helsinki: STUK) (1997).
9. Manual CDRAD Analyser version 1.1. (Zetten: Artinis Medical Systems) (2006).
10. ISO. Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement. (Geneva: ISO) (1995).
11. Börjesson, S. et al. A software tool for increased efficiency in observer performance studies in radiology. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 114, 45-52 (2005).
12. Båth, M., Håkansson, M., Hansson, J. and Månsson, L. G. A conceptual optimisation strategy for radiography in a digital environment. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 114, 230-235 (2005).
13. Vikgren, J., Johnsson, Å. A., Flinck, A., Kheddache, S., Milde, H. and Båth, M. High-resolution computed tomography with 16-row MDCT: a comparison regarding visibility and motion artifacts of dose-modulated thin slices and 'step and shoot' images. Acta Radiol. 49, 755-760 (2008).
14. Geijer, H., Beckman, K.-W., Andersson, T. and Persliden, J. Image quality vs radiation dose for a flat panel amorphous silicon detector: a phantom study. Eur. Radiol. 11, 1704-1709 (2001).
15. Jansson, M., Geijer, H., Persliden, J. and Andersson, T. Reducing dose in urography while maintaining image quality-a comparison of storage phosphor plates and a flat-panel detector. Eur. Radiol. 16, 221-226 (2006).
16. Pascoal, A., Lawinski, C. P., Honey, I. and Blake, P. Evaluation of a software package for automated quality assessment of contrast detail images-comparision with subjective visual assessment. Phys. Med. Biol. 50, 5743-5757 (2005).
17. Månsson, L. G., Båth, M. and Mattson, S. Priorities in optimisation of medical X-ray imaging-a contribution to the debate. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 114, 298-302 (2005).
18. Båth, M., Håkansson, M., Tingberg, A. and Månsson, L G. Method of simulating dose reduction for digital radiographic systems. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry 114, 253-239 (2005).
19. Liedenbaum, M. H., Venema, H. W. and Stoker, J. Radiation dose in CT colonography-trends in time and differences between daily practice and screening protocol. Eur. Radiol. 18, 2222-2230 (2008).
20. Fischiella, V. A., Båth, M., Johnsson, Å. A., Jäderling, F., Bergsten, T., Persson, U., Mellingen, K. and Hellström, M. Evaluation of image quality and lesion perception by human readers on 3D CT colonography: comparison of standard and low radiation dose. Eur. Radiol. 20, 630-639 (2009).