BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

British Journal of Radiology (2006) 79, 899-904
© 2006 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/57138583

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 Compagnone, G
Right arrow Articles by Bergamini, C
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Compagnone, G
Right arrow Articles by Bergamini, C

Full paper

Comparison of radiation doses to patients undergoing standard radiographic examinations with conventional screen–film radiography, computed radiography and direct digital radiography

G Compagnone, PhD1, M Casadio Baleni, MD2, L Pagan, MSc1, F L Calzolaio2, L Barozzi, MD2 and C Bergamini, PhD1

1 Medical Physics Department, 2 Accident and Emergency Department, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Via Massarenti 9, 40138 Bologna, Italy

New flat-panel direct digital radiography equipment has recently been installed in our Accident and Emergency Department; its characteristics and versatility are well suited to the work undertaken in this environment. The aim of this study was to compare radiation doses to patients undergoing standard radiographic examinations using conventional screen–film radiography, computed radiography and direct digital radiography; entrance surface dose and effective dose were calculated for six standard examinations (a total of 10 projections) using standard patient exposure parameters for the three imaging modalities. It was found that doses for computed radiography (all examinations) were higher than the doses for the other two modalities; effective doses for direct digital radiography were ~29% and ~43% lower than those for screen–film radiography and computed radiography, respectively. The image quality met the criteria in the European guidelines for all modalities.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadiologyHome page
F. A. Mettler Jr, W. Huda, T. T. Yoshizumi, and M. Mahesh
Effective Doses in Radiology and Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine: A Catalog
Radiology, July 1, 2008; 248(1): 254 - 263.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
G. Compagnone, L. Pagan, M. C. Baleni, F. L. Calzolaio, L. Barozzi, and C. Bergamini
Patient dose in digital projection radiography
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, March 1, 2008; 129(1-3): 135 - 137.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2006 by the British Institute of Radiology.