Mohammad Rawashdeh, Abdel-Baset Bani Yaseen, Mark McEntee, Andrew England, Praveen Kumar, Charbel Saade
{"title":"Diagnostic reference levels in spinal CT: Jordanian assessments and global benchmarks.","authors":"Mohammad Rawashdeh, Abdel-Baset Bani Yaseen, Mark McEntee, Andrew England, Praveen Kumar, Charbel Saade","doi":"10.3233/XST-230276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To reduce radiation dose and subsequent risks, several legislative documents in different countries describe the need for Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs). Spinal radiography is a common and high-dose examination. Therefore, the aim of this work was to establish the DRL for Computed Tomography (CT) examinations of the spine in healthcare institutions across Jordan.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data was retrieved from the picture archiving and communications system (PACS), which included the CT Dose Index (CTDI (vol) ) and Dose Length Product (DLP). The median radiation dose values of the dosimetric indices were calculated for each site. DRL values were defined as the 75th percentile distribution of the median CTDI (vol) and DLP values.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data was collected from 659 CT examinations (316 cervical spine and 343 lumbar-sacral spine). Of the participants, 68% were males, and the patients' mean weight was 69.7 kg (minimum = 60; maximum = 80, SD = 8.9). The 75th percentile for the DLP of cervical and LS-spine CT scans in Jordan were 565.2 and 967.7 mGy.cm, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This research demonstrates a wide range of variability in CTDI (vol) and DLP values for spinal CT examinations; these variations were associated with the acquisition protocol and highlight the need to optimize radiation dose in spinal CT examinations.</p>","PeriodicalId":49948,"journal":{"name":"Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology","volume":" ","pages":"725-734"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of X-Ray Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/XST-230276","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: To reduce radiation dose and subsequent risks, several legislative documents in different countries describe the need for Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs). Spinal radiography is a common and high-dose examination. Therefore, the aim of this work was to establish the DRL for Computed Tomography (CT) examinations of the spine in healthcare institutions across Jordan.
Methods: Data was retrieved from the picture archiving and communications system (PACS), which included the CT Dose Index (CTDI (vol) ) and Dose Length Product (DLP). The median radiation dose values of the dosimetric indices were calculated for each site. DRL values were defined as the 75th percentile distribution of the median CTDI (vol) and DLP values.
Results: Data was collected from 659 CT examinations (316 cervical spine and 343 lumbar-sacral spine). Of the participants, 68% were males, and the patients' mean weight was 69.7 kg (minimum = 60; maximum = 80, SD = 8.9). The 75th percentile for the DLP of cervical and LS-spine CT scans in Jordan were 565.2 and 967.7 mGy.cm, respectively.
Conclusions: This research demonstrates a wide range of variability in CTDI (vol) and DLP values for spinal CT examinations; these variations were associated with the acquisition protocol and highlight the need to optimize radiation dose in spinal CT examinations.
期刊介绍:
Research areas within the scope of the journal include:
Interaction of x-rays with matter: x-ray phenomena, biological effects of radiation, radiation safety and optical constants
X-ray sources: x-rays from synchrotrons, x-ray lasers, plasmas, and other sources, conventional or unconventional
Optical elements: grazing incidence optics, multilayer mirrors, zone plates, gratings, other diffraction optics
Optical instruments: interferometers, spectrometers, microscopes, telescopes, microprobes