Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Sep 8;16(5):435–441.
doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v16i5.5614.

Assessment of patient dose and optimization levels in chest and abdomen CR examinations at referral hospitals in Tanzania

A O Masoud  1 , W E Muhogora, P K Msaki
Affiliations

Assessment of patient dose and optimization levels in chest and abdomen CR examinations at referral hospitals in Tanzania

A O Masoud et al. J Appl Clin Med Phys. .

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiation doses to patient during chest and abdomen CR examinations, and assess the related level of optimization at five referral hospitals in Tanzania. The international code of practice for dosimetry in diagnostic radiology was applied to determine the entrance surface air kerma (ESAK) to patients. The level of optimization was assessed from low-contrast objects scores of phantom images at different exposures. The results show that mean ESAK varied from 0.16 to 0.37 mGy for chest PA and from 2 to 6 mGy for abdomen AP. Assuming similar patient and phantom attenuations, the optimization performed at all facilities was consistent with phantom evaluations in terms of tube potential settings in use. However, all facilities seemed to operate at higher tube load values above 5 mAs for chest examination, which can lead to unnecessary patient doses. Inadequate initial training on CR technology explains in large proportion the inappropriate use of exposure parameters.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The variation of the mean number of visible details as a function of tube potential.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The mean number of visible details as a function of tube loading.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Weatherburn GC, Bryan S, Davies JG. Comparison of doses for bedside examinations of the chest with conventional screen‐film and computed radiography: results of a randomized controlled trial. Radiology. 2000;217(3):707–12. - PubMed
    1. Bacher K, Smeets P, Bonnaresns K, De Hauwere A, Verstaete 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(4):923–29. - PubMed
    1. Aldrich JE, Duran E, Dunlop P, Mayo JR. Optimization of dose and image quality for computed radiography and digital radiography. J Digit Imaging. 2006;19(2):126–33. - PMC - PubMed
    1. McEntee M, Frawley H, Brenna PC. A comparison of low contrast performance for amorphous Silicon/caesium iodide direct radiography with a computed radiography: a contrast detail phantom study. Radiography. 2007;13(2):89–94.
    1. Sandborg M, Tingberg A, Ullman G, Dance DR, Alm Carlsson G. Comparison of clinical and physical measures of image quality in chest and pelvis computed radiography at different tube voltage. Med Phys. 2006;33(11):4169–75. - PubMed

Publication types