ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility to determine regional diagnostic reference levels (RDRLs) for paediatric conventional and CT examinations using the European guidelines and to compare RDRLs derived from weight and age groups, respectively. METHODS: Data were collected from 31 hospitals in 4 countries, for 7 examination types for a total of 2978 patients. RDRLs were derived for each weight and age group, respectively, when the total number of patients exceeded 15. RESULTS: It was possible to derive RDRLs for most, but not all, weight-based and age-based groups for the seven examinations. The result using weight-based and age-based groups differed substantially. The RDRLs were lower than or equal to the European and recently published national DRLs. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to derive RDRLs. However, a thorough review of the clinical indications and methodologies has to be performed previous to data collection. This study does not support the notion that DRLs derived using age and weight groups are exchangeable. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Paediatric DRLs should be derived using weight-based groups with access to the actual weight of the patients. DRLs developed using weight differ markedly from those developed with the use of age. There is still a need to harmonize the method to derive solid DRLs for paediatric radiological examinations.
Subject(s)
Diagnostic Reference Levels , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Radiography , Age Factors , Body Weight , Child , Child, Preschool , Europe , Feasibility Studies , Head/diagnostic imaging , Hip Joint/diagnostic imaging , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Pelvis/diagnostic imaging , Radiation Exposure , Radiography/statistics & numerical data , Radiography, Abdominal/statistics & numerical data , Radiography, Thoracic/statistics & numerical data , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To derive Regional Diagnostic Reference Levels (RDRL) for paediatric conventional and CT examinations using weight-based DRL curves and compare the outcome with DRL derived using the weight groups. METHODS: Data from 1722 examinations performed at 29 hospitals in four countries were included. DRL was derived for four conventional x-ray (chest, abdomen, pelvis, hips/joints) and two types of CT examinations (thorax, abdomen). DRL curves were derived using an exponential fit to the data using weight as an independent variable and the respective radiation dose indices (PKA, CTDIvol, DLP) as dependent variables. DRL was also derived for weight groups for comparison. The result was compared with national diagnostic reference level (NDRL) curves. RESULTS: The derived curves show similarities with the NDRL curves available and corresponded sufficiently well with DRL for weight groups using the same data set, if sufficient number of data was available. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that weight-based DRL curves are a feasible approach and could be used together with DRL for weight groups. The main advantage of DRL curves is its application in the clinic. When the examination frequency is low, time to collect enough data to establish typical values for one or several weight groups may be unreasonably long. The curve provides the means to compare dose level faster and with fewer data points.
