Local diagnostic reference levels for some common diagnostic X-ray examinations in Tehran county of Iran

Abstract

Various researchers who have carried out national and international surveys have reported wide variations in patient dose arising from specific X-ray examinations. This study was carried out as a part of a comprehensive project to establish national diagnostic reference level (NDRL), for the first time, in Iran. Seven most common X-ray examinations in 11 projections were included. Thermo luminescence dosimeters (TLD-100) were used to measure entrance surface doses (ESDs). The study group consisted of 535 patients who were referred for X-ray examinations to 12 randomly selected public hospitals in Tehran County. Minimum, median, mean, maximum, first and third quartile values of ESDs are reported. Our results are evident that mean dose values of patients undertaking a specific examination are widely different in various hospitals. Wide dose differences may emerge from complex causes, but in general, low peak kilovoltage and high milli Amperes are associated with higher doses. The results of this work together with further data expected to emerge from the work in progress will provide a useful base to establish Iran's DRLs.

Local reference dose evaluation in conventional radiography examinations in Iran

“…for good radiographic image in this province 7 , 10 , 11 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 . As 4, 5 show, this weakness was also seen in Bahreyni Toosi et al in Tehran, Mashhad, and Sabzovar 15 , 16 , 20 …”

“…India, and Bahreyni Toossi and Asadinezhad (20) in Tehran was used to obtain comparable data. Table 6 shows DRLs for different types of radiographic examinations in Sistan‐Baluchestan province and recent NRPB reports.…”

Diagnostic radiographic examinations in Saudi Arabia based on thermoluminescent dosimetery

“…The patient exposure parameters of several radiographic projections recorded at KKUH were compared with their corresponding values at international hospitals (Iran, UK and Malaysia) ( Table 4). As can be seen from Table 4, the mean values of potential, current and ESD determined in this study were compared with the corresponding values reported in Iran (Toosi and Asadinezhad, 2007), the United Kingdom (Hart et al, 2002) and Malaysia (NG et al, 1998). The results in Table 4 indicated that the range of applied tube potential for all the projections at KKUH was higher than the corresponding range reported in the surveys Abdelhalim et al 9819 undertaken in Iran, United Kingdom and Malaysia.…”

“…The very wide variations in patient dose arising from a specific type of x-ray examination in different national and international hospitals suggest that significant reductions in the patient dose would be possible without affecting image quality. Various researchers who previously carried out national and international surveys also reported wide variations in patient dose arising from specific x-ray examination (Seeram et al, 2006;Toosi and Asadinezhad, 2007;Asadinezhad and Toosi, 2008). They suggested that the possible causes for varying patient dose levels could be the examination technique, clinical condition, skill of the radiologist, tube current, tube potential and focus to film distance.…”

“…The need for radiation dose assessment of patients arising from diagnostic x-ray examinations has been highlighted by increasing knowledge of the hazards associated with the lowest doses of ionizing radiation (Toosi and Asadinezhad, 2007). Thus, the aim of this study was to establish a dosimetric survey (patient information and patient exposure parameters) based on thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) for eight diagnostic radiology examinations of 12 standard projections in Saudi Arabia.…”