4.6 Article

Provision of Italian diagnostic reference levels for diagnostic and interventional radiology

Journal

RADIOLOGIA MEDICA
Volume 126, Issue 1, Pages 99-105

Publisher

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s11547-020-01165-3

Keywords

Diagnostic reference level; Diagnostic radiology; Radiation protection; Optimisation; Patient dose; Interventional radiology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The establishment of DRL values in Italy for diagnostic and interventional procedures aims to align with the 2013/59 European Directive. The working group analyzed different radiological techniques and examinations for adult and pediatric patients, providing appropriate DRL values. Some DRL values are presented in the study, emphasizing the comparison of median values with the corresponding DRL values.
Objectives The diagnostic reference level (DRL) is a useful tool for the optimisation of medical exposures. Thus, a Working Party coordinated by the Italian National Institute of Health and the National Workers Compensation Authority has been formed to provide Italian DRLs, for both diagnostic and interventional procedures, to be used as appropriate for the implementation of the 2013/59 European Directive into the national regulation. Materials and methods The multidisciplinary Working Party was formed by professionals involved in diagnostic and interventional radiology medical exposures and started from a critical revision of both the literature and the results of previous Italian surveys. The procedures were divided into five sections for adult (projection radiography, mammography, diagnostic fluoroscopy, CT and interventional radiology) and two sections for paediatric patients (projection radiography and CT). The provided DRL values have been identified for normal adult patients and for age-classes of paediatric patients. Results Some of the DRL values provided by the Working Party are reported in this study as an example, divided by adult/paediatric patients, radiological technique and examination: specifically, DRLs for new radiological practices and new dose quantities as DRLs metric were introduced. The median value (rather than the mean) for each procedure, derived from a sample of patients, has to be compared with the corresponding DRL value, and dosimetric data related to a minimum number of patients should be collected for each examination. Conclusions The approach to the definition and use of DRLs through guidelines of national Authorities in collaboration with scientific Associations should simplify the periodical updating and could be useful for keeping the optimisation of medical exposures faithful to the development of radiological practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available