Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Digital Imaging Systems for Plain Radiography pp 49–62Cite as

Assessment of Patient Dose in Digital Systems

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1911 Accesses

Abstract

The assessment of patient dose has gained increased attention, still being an issue of concern that arises from the use of digital systems. The development of digital technology offers the possibility for a reduction of radiation dose around 50% without loss in image quality when compared to a conventional screen–film system. Digital systems give an equivalent or superior diagnostic performance and also several other advantages, but the risk of overexposure with no adverse effect on image quality could be present.

This chapter refers to the management of patient dose and provides an explanation of dose-related concepts. In this chapter, exposure influence in dose and image representation and the effects of radiation exposure are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Managing patient dose in digital radiology. ICRP Publication 93. Annals of the ICRP 34; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  2. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. UNSCEAR 2008 report to the general assembly, with scientific annexes. Volume I: Report to the general assembly, Scientific Annexes A and B; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Regulla DF, Eder H. Patient exposures in medical X-ray imaging in Europe. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;14:11–25C.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Berrington de González A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic X-rays: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet. 2004;363:345–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Martin CJ, Dendy PP, Corbett RH. Medical imaging and radiation protection for medical students and clinical staff. London: British Institute of Radiology; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Seeram E, Brennan P. Diagnostic reference levels in radiology. Radiol Technol. 2006;77:373–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cohen B. Cancer risk from low-level radiation. Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:1137–43.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cohen B. The cancer risk from low-level radiation. In: Tack D, Gevenois PA, editors. Radiation dose from adult and pediatric multidetector computed tomography. Berlin: Springer; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  9. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Avoidance of radiation injuries from medical interventional procedures. ICRP Publication 85. Annals of the ICRP 30; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  10. International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. ICRP Publication 60. Annals of the ICRP 21; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  11. International Atomic Energy Agency. Optimization of the radiological protection of patients undergoing radiography, fluoroscopy and computed tomography. Available at http://www.pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1423_web.pdf (2004).

  12. Tapiovaara M, Lakkisto M, Servomaa A. PCXMC: a PC-based Monte Carlo program for calculating patient doses in medical X-ray examinations, 1997. Report STUK-A139. Helsinki: Finnish Centre for Radiation and Nuclear Safety; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  13. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Radiologic protection in medicine. ICRP Publication 105. Annals of the ICRP 37; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Engel-Hills P. Radiation protection in medical imaging. Radiography. 2006;12:153–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bushong SC. Radiologic science for technologists. 7th ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Commission of the European Communities. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. EUR 16260. Available at ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/fp5-euratom/docs/eur16260.pdf (1996).

  17. International Society of Radiographers and Radiological Technologists. A glossary of physics. Radiation protection & dosimetry in diagnostic organ imaging. ISRRT Publication; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hart D, Jones DG, Wall BF. Estimation of effective doses in diagnostic radiology from entrance surface dose and dose-area product measurements. NRPB-R262. Chilton; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Uffmann M, Schaefer-Prokop C. Digital radiography: the balance between image quality and required radiation dose. Eur J Radiol. 2009;72:202–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. International Electrotechnical Commission. Medical electrical equipment—exposure index of digital X-ray imaging systems—Part 1: Definitions and requirements for general radiography. In: International Standard, IEC 62494, Geneva; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Lança L, Silva A. Evaluation of exposure index (lgm) in orthopaedic radiography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2008;129:112–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Peters S, Brennan P. 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;12:2381–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ng CKC, Sun Z. Development of an online automatic computed radiography dose data mining program: a preliminary study. Comput Meth Prog Biomed. 2010;97:48–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Radiological protection and safety in medicine. ICRP Publication 73. Annals of the ICRP 26; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hart D, Hillier MC, Wall BF. Doses to patients from medical X-ray examinations in the UK—2000 review. NRPB-W14. Available at http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947421571 (2002).

  26. American College of Radiology. ACR–SPR practice guideline for general radiography. Available at http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/guidelines/dx/general_radiography.aspx (2008).

  27. Gray JE, Archer BR, Butler PF, Hobbs BB, Mettler FA, Pizzutiello RJ, Schueler BA, Strauss KJ, Orhan H, Suleiman OH, Yaffe MJ. Reference values for diagnostic radiology: application and impact. Radiology. 2005;235:354–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. European Commission. Council Directive 97/43/Euratom. Health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionizing radiation in relation to medical exposure and repealing directive 84/466/Euratom. Available at http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/radioprotection/doc/legislation/9743_en.pdf (1997).

  29. Strotzer M, Völk M, Feuerbach S. Experimental examinations and initial clinical experience with a flat-panel detector in radiography. Electromedica. 1998;2:52–7.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Bacher K, Smeets P, Bonnarens K, De Hauwere A, Verstraete K, Thierens H. Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film–screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography. Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:923–9.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Al Khalifah K, Brindhaban A. Comparison between conventional radiography and digital radiography for various kVp and mAs settings using a pelvic phantom. Radiography. 2004;10:119–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Vaño E. ICRP publications on medical exposures: digital radiology. IFMBE Proc. 2007;14:4216–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento das Ciências e Tecnologias das Radiações e Biossinais da Saúde, Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde de Lisboa (ESTeSL) - Instituto Politécnico de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal

    Luís Lança

  2. Departamento de Electrónica, Telecomunicações e Informática, Universidade de Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, Aveiro, Portugal

    Augusto Silva

Authors
  1. Luís Lança
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Augusto Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lança, L., Silva, A. (2013). Assessment of Patient Dose in Digital Systems. In: Digital Imaging Systems for Plain Radiography. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5067-2_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5067-2_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5066-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5067-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation