BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
First published online September 17, 2007
British Journal of Radiology (2007) 80, 807-815
© 2007 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/77948690
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dougeni, E D
Right arrow Articles by Panayiotakis, G S
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dougeni, E D
Right arrow Articles by Panayiotakis, G S

Dose and image quality optimization in neonatal radiography

E D Dougeni, MSc 1 H B Delis, PhD 1 A A Karatza, MD, PhD 2 C P Kalogeropoulou, MD, PhD 3 S G Skiadopoulos, PhD 1 S P Mantagos, MD, PhD 2 and G S Panayiotakis, PhD 1

Departments of 1 Medical Physics, 2 Paediatrics and 3 Radiology, School of Medicine, University of Patras, 265 00 Patras, Greece


Figure 1
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1. Distribution of the number of radiographs per neonate.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 2. Distribution of entrance surface dose(ESD) as a function of tube voltage for all birthweight groups. The dotted line represents the dose reference level (DRL) value recommended by the National Radiological Protection Board.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 3. Mean entrance surface dose(ESD) values with respect to mean birthweight for each birthweight group.

 

Figure 4
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 4. Distribution of dose–area product (DAP) values with neonatal birthweight for all radiographs.

 

Figure 5
View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 5. Entrance surface dose values as deduced from the dose–area product values (ESDDAP) as a function of those theoretically estimated (ESDTHEOR.).

 

Figure 6
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 6. Normalized total image quality score of chest radiographs for all birthweight groups as a function of tube voltage.

 

Figure 7
View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 7. Normalized total image quality score of babygrams for all birthweight groups as a function of tube voltage.

 

Figure 8
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 8. The required values of mAs settings(mAs) for achieving maximum image quality scores (solid line) and 70% of the maximum score (dotted lines) as a function of tube voltage for all neonatal birthweight groups.

 

Figure 9
View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 9. The required values of mAs settings(mAs) for achieving maximum image quality scores (solid line) and 70% of the maximum score (dotted lines) as a function of tube voltage for each birthweight group separately.

 

Figure 10
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 10. Entrance surface doses(ESDs) for images receiving maximum image quality scores (solid line) and for images receiving 70% of the maximum score (dotted lines) as a function of tube voltage for all neonatal birthweight groups.

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2007 by the British Institute of Radiology.