Overview of double dosimetry procedures for the determination of the effective dose to the interventional radiology staff

2008 ◽  
Vol 129 (1-3) ◽  
pp. 333-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Jarvinen ◽  
N. Buls ◽  
P. Clerinx ◽  
J. Jansen ◽  
S. Miljanic ◽  
...  
2008 ◽  
Vol 131 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Jarvinen ◽  
N. Buls ◽  
P. Clerinx ◽  
S. Miljanic ◽  
D. Nikodemova ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 186 (4) ◽  
pp. 462-468
Author(s):  
Asmah Bohari ◽  
Suhairul Hashim ◽  
Sib Krishna Ghoshal ◽  
Siti Norsyafiqah Mohd Mustafa

Abstract Long exposure to radiation from fluoroscopy-guided interventions (FGIs) can be detrimental to both patients and radiologists. The effective doses received by the interventional radiology staff after performing 230 FGIs in a year were assessed by using double dosimetry and five various algorithms. The Shapiro–Wilk test revealed normally-distributed data (p < 0.01), while the significant correlation coefficients between the effective doses ranged between 0.88 and 1.00. As for the Bland–Altman analysis, both Niklason and Boetticher algorithms strongly supported the absence of statistical significance between the estimated effective doses. This portrays that the occupational doses received by the interventional radiology staff during FGIs fall within the acceptable limit regardless of the varied algorithms applied. In short, the Niklason and Boetticher algorithms appeared to be the more interchangeable ones for effective evaluation of doses. This is in view of their strong mutual correlations and excellent agreement.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bashayer Hassan Shuaib ◽  
Rahaf Hisham Niazi ◽  
Ahmed Haitham Abduljabbar ◽  
Mohammed Abdulraheem Wazzan

BACKGROUND Radiology now plays a major role to diagnose, monitoring, and management of several diseases; numerous diagnostic and interventional radiology procedures involve exposure to ionizing radiation. Radiology now plays a major role to diagnose, monitoring, and management of several diseases; numerous diagnostic and interventional radiology procedures involve exposure to ionizing radiation. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to discover and compare the awareness level of radiation doses, protection issues, and risks among radiology staff in Jeddah hospitals. METHODS A cross-sectional survey containing 25 questions on personal information and various aspects of radiation exposure doses and risks was designed using an online survey tool and the link was emailed to all radiology staff in eight tertiary hospitals in Jeddah. The authors were excluded from the study. A P-value of < .05 was used to identify statistical significance. All analyses were performed using SPSS, version 21. RESULTS Out of 156 participants the majority 151 (96.8%) had poor knowledge score, where the mean scores were 2.4±1.3 for doses knowledge, 2.1±1.1for cancer risks knowledge, 2.3±0.6 for general information, and 6.7±1.9 for the total score. Only 34.6% of the participants were aware of the dosage of a single-view chest x-ray, and 9.0% chose the right answer for the approximate effective dose received by a patient in a two-view. 42.9% were able to know the correct dose of CT abdomen single phase. There is a significant underestimation of cancer risk of CT studies especially for CT abdomen where only 23.7% knew the right risk. A p-value of <0.05 was used to identify statistical significance. No significant difference of knowledge score was detected regarding gender (P =.2) or work position (P=.66). CONCLUSIONS Our survey results show considerable inadequate knowledge in all groups without exception. We recommended a conscientious effort to deliver more solid education and obtain more knowledge in these matters and providing periodic training courses to teach how to minimize the dose of radiation and to avoid risk related. CLINICALTRIAL not applicable


2016 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 128-131
Author(s):  
Sang Phil Shin ◽  
Tomoyo Nishimura ◽  
Kazuo Ogawa ◽  
Sho Shirakashi

1992 ◽  
Vol 43 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 37-40
Author(s):  
K.A. Jessen ◽  
J.J. Christensen ◽  
J. Jørgensen ◽  
J. Petersen ◽  
E.W. Sørensen

1992 ◽  
Vol 43 (1-4) ◽  
pp. 37-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
K.A. Jessen ◽  
J.J. Christensen ◽  
J. Jørgensen ◽  
J. Petersen ◽  
E.W. Sørensen

2021 ◽  
Vol 178 ◽  
pp. 108934
Author(s):  
Hauwa'u Kulu Shu'aibu ◽  
Mayeen Uddin Khandaker ◽  
Auwal Baballe ◽  
Salisu Tata ◽  
Mohammed Auwal Adamu

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document