4.4 Article

Diagnostic reference level for adult pelvic examination in several hospitals of Taif and Kharaj city, Saudi Arabia

期刊

APPLIED RADIATION AND ISOTOPES
卷 180, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apradiso.2021.110049

关键词

X-ray; ESAK; Radiology; Pelvis; Medical imaging

资金

  1. Deanship of the Scientific Research of Taif University, Saudi Arabia [1-441-109]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study estimated the entrance surface air kerma (ESAK) for adult patients undergoing conventional radiography of Anteroposterior pelvis examination and established a local diagnostic reference level (DRL). The study found a high correlation between BMI and ESAK, and that conventional digital radiography can reduce radiation exposure in pelvic imaging.
The current study was aimed to estimate the entrance surface air kerma (ESAK, mGy) for adult patients undergoing conventional radiography of Anteroposterior pelvis examination, and finally to establish a local diagnostic reference level (DRL). A total of 500 patients were exposed to diagnostic radiation in four hospitals (coded A, B, C, and D) in Taif and Kharaj city, Saudi Arabia, with different X-ray equipment specifications. Patient demographic data like age (y), body mass index (BMI) in kg/m(2) as well as exposure factors and X-ray tube output were recorded. ESAK (mGy) was first calculated using the exposure data and tube output values, then the ESAK values were used to estimate entrance surface dose (ESD). The average BMI was 23.9 kg/m(2). The mean tube potential used in A, B, C, and D hospitals and the corresponding estimated ESD were found to be 74.2, 69.8, 73, 76,7 kVp, and 2.54, 2.64, 2.94, 3.03 mGy respectively. The correlation coefficient between ESAK and BMI was found to be 0.98. When compared to computed radiography (CR), the conventional X-ray digital radiography reduces the radiation exposure in pelvic imaging by a factor of 1.18. The third quartile of median proposed a lower than the DRL of the previous studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据