The validity and reliability of the exposure index as a metric for estimating the radiation dose to the patient.

INTRODUCTION: With the introduction of digital radiography, the feedback between image quality and over-exposure has been partly lost which in some cases has led to a steady increase in dose. Over the years the introduction of exposure index (EI) has been used to resolve this phenomenon referred to as 'dose creep'. Even though EI is often vendor specific it is always a related of the radiation exposure to the detector. Due to the nature of this relationship EI can also be used as a patient dose indicator, however this is not widely investigated in literature. METHODS: A total of 420 dose-area-product (DAP) and EI measurements were taken whilst varying kVp, mAs and body habitus on two different anthropomorphic phantoms (pelvis and chest). Using linear regression, the correlation between EI and DAP were examined. Additionally, two separate region of interest (ROI) placements/per phantom where examined in order to research any effect on EI. RESULTS: When dividing the data into subsets, a strong correlation between EI and DAP was shown with all R-squared values > 0.987. Comparison between the ROI placements showed a significant difference between EIs for both placements. CONCLUSION: This research shows a clear relationship between EI and radiation dose which is dependent on a wide variety of factors such as ROI placement, body habitus. In addition, pathology and manufacturer specific EI's are likely to be of influence as well. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The combination of DAP and EI might be used as a patient dose indicator. However, the influencing factors as mentioned in the conclusion should be considered and examined before implementation.

Analysis of radiation exposure data from common radiological procedures in Dutch hospitals.

INTRODUCTION: In the Netherlands, Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) have not been based on a national survey as proposed by ICRP. Instead, local exposure data, expert judgment and the international scientific literature were used as sources. This study investigated whether the current DRLs are reasonable for Dutch radiological practice. METHODS: A national project was set up, in which radiography students carried out dose measurements in hospitals supervised by medical physicists. The project ran from 2014 to 2017 and dose values were analysed for a trend over time. In the absence of such a trend, the joint yearly data sets were considered a single data set and were analysed together. In this way the national project mimicked a national survey. RESULTS: For six out of eleven radiological procedures enough data was collected for further analysis. In the first step of the analysis no trend was found over time for any of these procedures. In the second step the joint analysis lead to suggestions for five new DRL values that are far below the current ones. The new DRLs are based on the 75 percentile values of the distributions of all dose data per procedure. CONCLUSION: The results show that the current DRLs are too high for five of the six procedures that have been analysed. For the other five procedures more data needs to be collected. Moreover, the mean weights of the patients are higher than expected. This introduces bias when these are not recorded and the mean weight is assumed to be 77 kg. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The current checking of doses for compliance with the DRLs needs to be changed. Both the procedure (regarding weights) and the values of the DRLs should be updated.

Compliance to Diagnostic Reference Levels for radiation exposure in common radiological procedures in Dutch hospitals: A nation-wide survey carried out by medical imaging students.

INTRODUCTION: In the Netherlands, hospitals have difficulty in implementing the formal procedure of comparing radiation dose values to Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs). METHODS: To support the hospitals, train radiography students, and carry out a nationwide dose survey, diagnostic radiography students performed 125 DRL comparisons for nine different procedures in 29 radiology departments. Students were instructed at three Dutch Universities of Applied Sciences with a radiography programme and supervised by medical physicists from the participating hospitals. RESULTS: After a pilot study in the western part of the country in eight hospitals, this study was enlarged to involve 21 hospitals from all over the Netherlands. The 86 obtained dose comparisons fall below the DRLs in 97% of all cases. This very high compliance may have been enhanced by the voluntary participation of hospitals that are confident about their performance. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the current DRLs that were not based on a national survey, may need to be updated, sometimes to half their current value. For chest and pelvis examinations the DRLs could be lowered from 12 and 300 µGy·m2 to the 75-percentile values found in this study of 5,9 and 188 µGy·m2, respectively.