BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

British Journal of Radiology (2005) 78, 810-815
© 2005 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/74823655

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Poletti, J L
Right arrow Articles by Mclean, D
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Poletti, J L
Right arrow Articles by Mclean, D

Full Paper

The effect of source to image-receptor distance on effective dose for some common X-ray projections

J L Poletti, MSc 1,2 and D Mclean, PhD 2,3

1 Unitec New Zealand, Private Bag 92025, Auckland, New Zealand, 2 School of Medical Radiation Science, Cumberland Campus, University of Sydney and 3 Medical Physics Department, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia

A number of studies on the effects of source to image distance (SID) on dose to the patient have been published. These generally assume that the X-ray beam is collimated to a rectangular region of fixed size at the entrance surface of the patient at each SID. This is poor radiographic practice. In this work, effective doses have been determined using the commercially available Monte Carlo simulation package PCXMC. Three collimation cases were considered, namely to regions of clinical interest at the entrance and at the centre of the patient, and a fixed beam size at the image receptor. For cases of collimation to a central region of interest or to the image receptor, the saving in effective dose at increased SIDs is modest.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
P C Brennan and D O'leary
Source to image receptor distance.
Br. J. Radiol., March 1, 2006; 79(939): 266 - 266.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
J Poletti and D McLean
Authors' reply.
Br. J. Radiol., March 1, 2006; 79(939): 266 - 267.
[Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2005 by the British Institute of Radiology.