Penetration of X-rays

Aichinger, Horst; Dierker, Joachim; Joite-Barfuß, Sigrid; Säbel, Manfred

doi:10.1007/978-3-662-09654-3_5

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With the DigitalDiagnost system the automatic exposure device (AED) can remain in position when the grid is removed, thus allowing for phototimed exposures to be made with grid in or out. 20 If AEDs are being used, and because these are positioned on the detector side of the grid, 21 proper calibration and operation need to be confirmed. 22 It is also possible that radiographers were using adjustments when using the AEC, which could account for the EI values seen here.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retrospective evaluation of exposure index (EI) values from plain radiographs reveals important considerations for quality improvement

Mothiram

Brennan

Robinson

et al. 2013

J of Medical Radiation Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionFollowing X-ray exposure, radiographers receive immediate feedback on detector exposure in the form of the exposure index (EI).PurposeTo identify whether radiographers are meeting manufacturer-recommended EI (MREI) ranges for routine chest, abdomen and pelvis X-ray examinations under a variety of conditions and to examine factors affecting the EI.MethodsData on 5000 adult X-ray examinations including the following variables were collected: examination parameters, EI values, patient gender, date of birth, date and time of examination, grid usage and the presence of implant or prosthesis. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize each data set and the Mann–Whitney U test was used to determine significant differences, with P < 0.05 indicating significance for all tests.ResultsMost examinations demonstrated EI values that were outside the MREI ranges, with significantly higher median EI values recorded for female patient radiographs than those for male patients for all manufacturers, indicating higher detector exposures for all units except for Philips digital radiography (DR), where increased EI values indicate lower exposure (P = 0.01). Median EI values for out of hours radiography were also significantly higher compared with normal working hours for all technologies (P ≤ 0.02). Significantly higher median EI values were demonstrated for Philips DR chest X-rays without as compared to those with the employment of a grid (P = 0.03), while significantly lower median EI values were recorded for Carestream Health computed radiography (CR) chest X-rays when an implant or prosthesis was present (P = 0.02).ConclusionsNon-adherence to MREIs has been demonstrated with EI value discrepancies being dependent on patient gender, time/day of exposure, grid usage and the presence of an implant or prosthesis. Retrospective evaluation of EI databases is a valuable tool to assess the need of quality improvement in routine DR.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%