Effective Doses in Radiology and Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine: A Catalog

Medical uses of radiation have grown very rapidly over the past decade, and, as of 2007, medical uses represent the largest source of exposure to the U.S. population. Most physicians have difficulty assessing the magnitude of exposure or potential risk. Effective dose provides an approximate indicator of potential detriment from ionizing radiation and should be used as one parameter in evaluating the appropriateness of examinations involving ionizing radiation. The purpose of this review is to provide a compilation of effective doses for radiologic and nuclear medicine procedures. Standard radiographic examinations have average effective doses that vary by over a factor of 1000 (0.01–10 mSv). Computed tomographic examinations tend to be in a more narrow range but have relatively high average effective doses (approximately 2–20 mSv), and average effective doses for interventional procedures usually range from 5–70 mSv. Average effective dose for most nuclear medicine procedures varies between 0.3 and 20 mSv. These doses can be compared with the average annual effective dose from background radiation of about 3 mSv.

© RSNA, 2008

References

  • 1 Amis ES Jr, Butler PF, Applegate KE, et al. American College of Radiology white paper on radiation dose in medicine. J Am Coll Radiol 2007; 4(5): 272–284. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP 1991;21(1-3):1–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3 The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 2007;37(2-4):1–332. Google Scholar
  • 4 Aldrich JE, Lentle BC, Vo C. Radiation doses from medical diagnostic procedures in Canada. Mississauga, Ontario, Canada: Advisory Committee on Radiological Protection for the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada, 1997. Google Scholar
  • 5 Angelucci M, Borio R, Chiocchini S, Degli Esposti P, Dipilato AC, Policani G. Patient doses and risk evaluation in bone mineral densitometry. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1999;86(3):191–195. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Aroua A, Vader JP, Valley JF. A survey on exposure by radiodiagnostics in Switzerland in 1998. http://www.chuv.ch/ira/documents/edr_fr/Rapport.pdf. Accessed June 13, 2007. Google Scholar
  • 7 Bergeron P, Carrier R, Roy D, Blais N, Raymond J. Radiation doses to patients in neurointerventional procedures. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1994;15(10):1809–1812. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Balter S. Potential radiation guidance levels for invasive cardiology. Presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Orlando, Fla, July 30 to August 3, 2006. Google Scholar
  • 9 Balter S, Schueler BA, Miller DL, et al. Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR Study. III. Dosimetric performance of the interventional fluoroscopy units. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2004;15(9):919–926. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bauer B, Veit R. Initiatives, achievements and perspectives in quality assurance and radiation protection in diagnostic radiology, both on legal and practical level in Germany. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1995;57(1-4):43–46. Google Scholar
  • 11 Betsou S, Efstathopoulos EP, Katritsis D, Faulkner K, Panayiotakis G. Patient radiation doses during cardiac catheterization procedures. Br J Radiol 1998;71(846):634–639. Google Scholar
  • 12 Bor D, Toklu T, Olgar T, et al. Variations of patient doses in interventional examinations at different angiographic units. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2006;29(5):797–806. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Børretzen I, Lysdahl K, Olerud H. Diagnostic radiology in Norway: trends in examination frequency and collective effective dose. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2007;124(4):339–347. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Brix G, Nagel HD, Stamm G, et al. Radiation exposure in multi-slice versus single-slice spiral CT: results of a nationwide survey. Eur Radiol 2003;13(8):1979–1991. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Brix G, Nekolla E, Griebel J. Radiation exposure of patients from diagnostic and interventional x-ray procedures: facts, assessment and trends [in German]. Radiologe 2005;45(4):340–349. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Broadhead DA, Chapple CL, Faulkner K, Davies ML, McCallum H. Local reference doses during cardiology procedures. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1998;80(1-3):149–150. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Broadhead DA, Chapple CL, Faulkner K, et al. The impact of cardiology on the collective effective dose in the North of England. Br J Radiol 1997;70(833):492–497. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Brugmans MJ, Buijs WC, Geleijns J, Lembrechts J. Population exposure to diagnostic use of ionizing radiation in the Netherlands. Health Phys 2002;82(4):500–509. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Burch A, Goodman DA. A pilot survey of radiation doses received in the United Kingdom Breast Screening Programme. Br J Radiol 1998;71(845):517–527. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Burling D, Halligan S, Taylor SA, et al. CT colonography practice in the UK: a national survey. Clin Radiol 2004;59(1):39–43. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Calzado A, Vañó E, Morán P, Castellote C, Ruiz S, González L. Estimation of doses to patients from “complex” conventional X-ray examinations. Br J Radiol 1991;64(762):539–546. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Carroll EM, Brennan PC. Investigation into patient doses for intravenous urography and proposed Irish diagnostic reference levels. Eur Radiol 2003;13(7):1529–1533. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Carroll E, Brennan PC. Patient dose variation investigated in four Irish hospitals for barium meal and barium enema examinations. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2001;97(3):275–278. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Chamberlain CC, Huda W, Hojnowski LS, Perkins A, Scaramuzzino A. Radiation doses to patients undergoing scoliosis radiography. Br J Radiol 2000;73(872):847–853. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Chapple CL, Faulkner K, Harrison RM. An investigation into the performance of an automated quality assurance and dosimetry system in diagnostic radiology. Br J Radiol 1990;63(752):635–639. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Chapple CL, Faulkner K, Lee RE, Hunter EW. Radiation doses to paediatric patients undergoing less common radiological procedures involving fluoroscopy. Br J Radiol 1993;66(789):823–827. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Chapple CL, Faulkner K, Lee RE, Hunter EW. Results of a survey of doses to paediatric patients undergoing common radiological examinations. Br J Radiol 1992;65(771):225–231. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Chevalier M, Morán P, Ten JI, Fernández Soto JM, Cepeda T, Vañó E. Patient dose in digital mammography. Med Phys 2004;31(9):2471–2479. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Chu RY, Parry C, Eaton BG. Entrance skin exposure in PA chest radiography. Radiol Technol 1998;69(3):251–254. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Chu RY, Parry C, Thompson W 3rd, Loeffler C. Patient doses in abdominal aortogram and aorta femoral runoff examinations. Health Phys 1998;75(5):487–491. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Cohnen M, Kemper J, Möbes O, Pawelzik J, Mödder U. Radiation dose in dental radiology. Eur Radiol 2002;12(3):634–637. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Cohnen M, Poll L, Püttmann C, Ewen K, Mödder U. Radiation exposure in multi-slice CT of the heart. Rofo 2001;173(4):295–299. [Published correction appears in Rofo 2001;173(6):521.] Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Cohnen M, Poll LJ, Puettmann C, Ewen K, Saleh A, Mödder U. Effective doses in standard protocols for multi-slice CT scanning. Eur Radiol 2003;13(5):1148–1153. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Cohnen M, Vogt C, Aurich V, Beck A, Häussinger D, Mödder U. Multi-slice CT-colonography in low-dose technique: preliminary results. Rofo 2002;174(7):835–838. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Cohnen M, Wittsack HJ, Assadi S, et al. Radiation exposure of patients in comprehensive computed tomography of the head in acute stroke. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27(8):1741–1745. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Compagnone G, Baleni MC, Pagan L, Calzolaio FL, Barozzi L, Bergamini C. Comparison of radiation doses to patients undergoing standard radiographic examinations with conventional screen-film radiography, computed radiography and direct digital radiography. Br J Radiol 2006;79(947):899–904. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Compagnone G, Pagan L, Bergamini C. Effective dose calculations in conventional diagnostic x-ray examinations for adult and paediatric patients in a large Italian hospital. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005;114(1-3):164–167. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Contento G, Malisan MR, Padovani R, Maccia C, Wall BF, Shrimpton PC. A comparison of diagnostic radiology practice and patient exposure in Britain, France and Italy. Br J Radiol 1988;61(722):143–152. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Conway BJ, McCrohan JL, Antonsen RG, Rueter FG, Slayton RJ, Suleiman OH. Average radiation dose in standard CT examinations of the head: results of the 1990 NEXT survey. Radiology 1992;184(1):135–140. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Conway BJ, Suleiman OH, Rueter FG, Antonsen RG, Slayton RJ. National survey of mammographic facilities in 1985, 1988, and 1992. Radiology 1994;191(2):323–330. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Coulden RA, Readman LP. Coronary angiography: an analysis of radiographic practice in the UK. Br J Radiol 1993;66(784):327–331. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Crawley MT, Rogers AT. A comparison of computed tomography practice in 1989 and 1991. Br J Radiol 1994;67(801):872–876. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Feygelman VM, Huda W, Peters KR. Effective dose equivalents to patients undergoing cerebral angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1992;13(3):845–849. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Fransson SG, Persliden J. Patient radiation exposure during coronary angiography and intervention. Acta Radiol 2000;41(2):142–144. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Gallagher D. Current practices in accident and emergency skull radiography. Radiogr Today 1993;69(673):21–24. Google Scholar
  • 46 Geleijns J, Broerse JJ, Shaw MP, et al. Patient dose due to colon examination: dose assessment and results from a survey in the Netherlands. Radiology 1997;204(2):553–559. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Geleijns J, Broerse JJ, Chandie Shaw MP, et al. A comparison of patient dose for examinations of the upper gastrointestinal tract at 11 conventional and digital X-ray units in the Netherlands. Br J Radiol 1998;71(847):745–753. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Gennaro G, Baldelli P, Taibi A, Di Maggio C, Gambaccini M. Patient dose in full-field digital mammography: an Italian survey. Eur Radiol 2004;14(4):645–652. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Gonzalez L, Fernandez R, Ziraldo V, Vano E, Ortega R. Reference level for patient dose in dental skull lateral teleradiography. Br J Radiol 2004;77(921):735–739. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 50 González L, Vañó E, Fernández R. Reference doses in dental radiodiagnostic facilities. Br J Radiol 2001;74(878):153–156. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 51 González L, Vañó E, Ruiz MJ. Radiation doses to paediatric patients undergoing micturating cystourethrography examinations and potential reduction by radiation protection optimization. Br J Radiol 1995;68(807):291–295. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Gray JE, Ragozzino MW, Van Lysel MS, Burke TM. Normalized organ doses for various diagnostic radiologic procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1981;137(3):463–470. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Guglielmi G, Gluer CC, Majumdar S, Blunt BA, Genant HK. Current methods and advances in bone densitometry. Eur Radiol 1995;5(2):129–139. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Hart D, Haggett PJ, Boardman P, Nolan DJ, Wall BF. Patient radiation doses from enteroclysis examinations. 6Br J Radiol 1994;67(802):997–1000. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Hart D, Hillier MC, Wall BF, et al. Doses to patients from medical x-ray examinations in the UK: 1995 review. NRPB-R289. Chilton, England: National Radiation Protection Board, 1996. Google Scholar
  • 56 Hart D, Wall B. Radiation exposure of the UK population from medical and dental x-ray examinations. NRPB-W4 edition. Chilton, England: National Radiation Protection Board, 2002. Google Scholar
  • 57 Hart D, Wall B. UK population dose from medical x-ray examinations. Eur J Radiol 2004;50(3):285–291. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Hart D, Wall BF. A survey of nuclear medicine in the UK in 2003/04. HPA-RPD-003. Chilton, England: Health Protection Agency, 2005. Google Scholar
  • 59 Hart D, Wall BF. UK nuclear medicine survey 2003–2004. Nucl Med Commun 2005;26(11):937–946. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Heggie JC. A survey of doses to patients in a large public hospital resulting from common plain film radiographic procedures. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 1990;13(2):71–80. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Hiles PA, Scott SA, Brennan SE, Davies JH. All Wales CT dose and technique survey. Report by the Medical Imaging Sub-committee of the Welsh Scientific Advisory Committee. Cardiff, Wales: Welsh Office, 1996. Google Scholar
  • 62 Hoskins PR, Gillespie I, Ireland HM. Patient dose measurements from femoral angiography. Br J Radiol 1996;69(828):1159–1164. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Huda W, Sandison GA, Palser RF, Savoie D. Radiation doses and detriment from chest x-ray examinations. Phys Med Biol 1989;34(10):1477–1492. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Huda W, Bissessur K. Effective dose equivalents, HE, in diagnostic radiology. Med Phys 1990;17(6):998–1003. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Huda W, Sandison GA. Estimates of the effective dose equivalent, HE, in positron emission tomography studies. Eur J Nucl Med 1990;17(3-4):116–120. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Huda W, Morin RL. Patient doses in bone mineral densitometry. Br J Radiol 1996;69(821):422–425. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Huda W. Radiation dosimetry in diagnostic radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169(6):1487–1488. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Huda W, Atherton JV, Ware DE, Cumming WA. An approach for the estimation of effective radiation dose at CT in pediatric patients. Radiology 1997;203(2):417–422. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Huda W, Gkanatsios NA. Radiation dosimetry for extremity radiographs. Health Phys 1998;75(5):492–499. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Huda W, Scalzetti EM, Roskopf M. Effective doses to patients undergoing thoracic computed tomography examinations. Med Phys 2000;27(5):838–844. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Huda W, Mergo PJ. How will the introduction of multi-slice CT affect patient doses? In: Radiological protection of patients in diagnostic radiology, nuclear medicine and radiotherapy. Proceedings of an international conference held in Malaga, Spain, 26–30 March, 2001. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency, 2001. Google Scholar
  • 72 Huda W, Chamberlain CC, Rosenbaum AE, Garrisi W. Radiation doses to infants and adults undergoing head CT examinations. Med Phys 2001;28(3):393–399. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Hunold P, Vogt FM, Schmermund A, et al. Radiation exposure during cardiac CT: effective doses at multi-detector row CT and electron-beam CT. Radiology 2003;226(1):145–152. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Radiation dose to patients from radiopharmaceuticals (addendum 2 to ICRP publication 53). Ann ICRP 1998;28(3):1–126. Google Scholar
  • 75 Committee for Review and Evaluation of the Medical Use Program of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Institute of Medicine. Radiation in medicine: a need for regulatory reform. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1996. Google Scholar
  • 76 Karambatsakidou A, Tornvall P, Saleh N, Chouliaras T, Löfberg PO, Fransson A. Skin dose alarm levels in cardiac angiography procedures: is a single DAP value sufficient? Br J Radiol 2005;78(933):803–809. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Karppinen J. Radiation risk and exposure of radiologists and patients during coronary angiography and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1995;57(1-4):481–485. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Katritsis D, Efstathopoulos E, Betsou S, et al. Radiation exposure of patients and coronary arteries in the stent era: a prospective study. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2000;51(3):259–264. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Kaul A, Bauer B, Bernhardt J, Nosske D, Veit R. Effective doses to members of the public from the diagnostic application of ionizing radiation in Germany. Eur Radiol 1997;7(7):1127–1132. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Kemerink GJ, Kicken PJ, Schultz FW, Zoetelief J, van Engelshoven JM. Patient dose in abdominal arteriography. Phys Med Biol 1999;44(5):1133–1145. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Kemerink GJ, De Haan MW, Vasbinder GB, et al. The effect of equipment set up on patient radiation dose in conventional and CT angiography of the renal arteries. Br J Radiol 2003;76(909):625–630. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Kemerink GJ, Borstlap AC, Frantzen MJ, Schultz FW, Zoetelief J, van Engelshoven JM. Patient and occupational dosimetry in double contrast barium enema examinations. Br J Radiol 2001;74(881):420–428. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Khursheed A, Hillier MC, Shrimpton PC, Wall BF. Influence of patient age on normalized effective doses calculated for CT examinations. Br J Radiol 2002;75(898):819–830. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Leung KC, Martin CJ. Effective doses for coronary angiography. Br J Radiol 1996;69(821):426–431. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Lickfett L, Mahesh M, Vasamreddy C, et al. Radiation exposure during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. Circulation 2004;110(19):3003–3010. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Lobotessi H, Karoussou A, Neofotistou V, Louisu A, Tsapaki V. Effective dose to a patient undergoing coronary angiography. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2001;94(1-2):173–176. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Marshall NW, Chapple CL, Kotre CJ. Diagnostic reference levels in interventional radiology. Phys Med Biol 2000;45(12):3833–3846. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Marshall NW, Faulkner K, Busch HP, Marsh DM, Pfenning H. An investigation into the radiation dose associated with different imaging systems for chest radiology. Br J Radiol 1994;67(796):353–359. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Marshall NW, Faulkner K, Busch HP, Marsh DM, Pfenning H. A comparison of radiation dose in examination of the abdomen using different radiological imaging techniques. Br J Radiol 1994;67(797):478–484. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Marshall NW, Noble J, Faulkner K. Patient and staff dosimetry in neuroradiological procedures. Br J Radiol 1995;68(809):495–501. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Mattsson S. Dosimetry for radiopharmaceuticals. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1998;79(1-4):343–349. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 92 McCollough CH. Patient dose in cardiac computed tomography. Herz 2003;28(1):1–6. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 93 McCollough CH, Zink FE, Morin RL. Radiation dosimetry for electron beam CT. Radiology 1994;192(3):637–643. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 94 McParland BJ. A study of patient radiation doses in interventional radiological procedures. Br J Radiol 1998;71(842):175–185. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 95 Miller DL, Balter S, Cole PE, et al. Radiation doses in interventional radiology procedures: the RAD-IR study. I. Overall measures of dose. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2003;14(6):711–727. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 96 Mini RL, Schmid B, Schneeberger P, et al. Dose-area product measurements during angiographic x-ray procedures. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1998;80(1-3):145–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 97 Morán P, Chevalier M, Ten JI, Fernández Soto JM, Vañó E. A survey of patient dose and clinical factors in a full-field digital mammography system. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005;114(1-3):375–379. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 98 Morán P, Chevalier M, Vanó E. Comparative study of dose values and image quality in mammography in the area of Madrid. Br J Radiol 1994;67(798):556–563. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 99 Morin RL, Gerber TC, McCollough CH. Physics and dosimetry in computed tomography. Cardiol Clin 2003;21(4):515–520. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 100 Morin RL, Gerber TC, McCollough CH. Radiation dose in computed tomography of the heart. Circulation 2003;107(6):917–922. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 101 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Exposure of the U.S. population from diagnostic medical radiation: recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. NCRP report No. 100. Bethesda, Md: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 1989. Google Scholar
  • 102 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Radiation protection in dentistry. NCRP report No. 145. Bethesda, Md: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 2003. Google Scholar
  • 103 National Radiation Protection Board. Notes for guidance on the clinical administration of radiopharmaceuticals and use of sealed radioactive sources. Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee. Chilton, England: National Radiological Protection Board, 1998. Google Scholar
  • 104 National Radiation Protection Board. Guidelines on radiology standards for primary dental care. Chilton, England: National Radiological Protection Board, 1994. Google Scholar
  • 105 National Radiation Protection Board. Doses to patients from medical x-ray examination in the UK: 2000 review. Chilton, England: National Radiological Protection Board, 2000. Google Scholar
  • 106 Neofotistou V, Vano E, Padovani R, et al. Preliminary reference levels in interventional cardiology. Eur Radiol 2003;13(10):2259–2263. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 107 Neofotistou V. Review of patient dosimetry in cardiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2001;94(1-2):177–182. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 108 Nikolic B, Spies JB, Lundsten MJ, Abbara S. Patient radiation dose associated with uterine artery embolization. Radiology 2000;214(1):121–125. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 109 Nishizawa K, Maruyama T, Takayama M, Iwai K, Furuya Y. Estimation of effective dose from CT examination [in Japanese]. Nippon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi 1995;55(11):763–768. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 110 Nishizawa K, Maruyama T, Takayama M, Okada M, Hachiya J, Furuya Y. Determinations of organ doses and effective dose equivalents from computed tomographic examination. Br J Radiol 1991;64(757):20–28. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 111 Nishizawa K, Matsumoto M, Iwai K, Maruyama T. Survey of CT practice in Japan and collective effective dose estimation [in Japanese]. Nippon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi 2004;64(3):151–158. Google Scholar
  • 112 Nishizawa K, Matsumoto M, Iwai K, Tonari A, Yoshida T, Takayama M. Dose evaluation and effective dose estimation from multi detector CT. Igaku Butsuri 2002;22(3):152–158. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 113 Nishizawa K. Dose evaluation and effective dose estimation from CT fluoroscopy-guided lung biopsy. Igaku Butsuri 2001;21(4):233–244. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 114 Njeh CF, Apple K, Temperton DH, Boivin CM. Radiological assessment of a new bone densitometer: the Lunar EXPERT. Br J Radiol 1996;69(820):335–340. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 115 Njeh CF, Fuerst T, Hans D, Blake GM, Genant HK. Radiation exposure in bone mineral density assessment. Appl Radiat Isot 1999;50(1):215–236. Google Scholar
  • 116 Olerud HM, Saxebøl G. Diagnostic radiology in Norway from 1983–1993: examination frequency and collective effective dose to patients. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1997;74(4):247–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 117 Olerud HM. Analysis of factors influencing patient doses from CT in Norway. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1997;71(2):123–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 118 Padovani R, Bernardi G, Malisan MR, Vañó E, Morocutti G, Fioretti PM. Patient dose related to the complexity of interventional cardiology procedures. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2001;94(1-2):189–192. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 119 Palmer SH, Starritt HC, Paterson M. Radiation protection of the ovaries in young scoliosis patients. Eur Spine J 1998;7(4):278–281. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 120 Regulla DF, Eder H. Patient exposure in medical X-ray imaging in Europe. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005;114(1-3):11–25. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 121 Regulla DF, Ricci A, Sonnabend E. Dose measurement in panoramic x-rays of the dentition with thermoluminescence dosimetry [in German]. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 1972;27(1):14–21. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 122 Resten A, Mausoleo F, Valero M, Musset D. Comparison of doses for pulmonary embolism detection with helical CT and pulmonary angiography. Eur Radiol 2003;13(7):1515–1521. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 123 Rosenthal LS, Mahesh M, Beck TJ, et al. Predictors of fluoroscopy time and estimated radiation exposure during radiofrequency catheter ablation procedures. Am J Cardiol 1998;82(4):451–458. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 124 Ruiz-Cruces R, Garcia-Granados J, Diaz Romero FJ. Estimation of effective dose in some digital angiographic and interventional procedures. Br J Radiol 1998;71(841):42–47. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 125 Ruiz-Cruces R, Pérez-Martínez M, Martín-Palanca A, et al. Patient dose in radiologically guided interventional vascular procedures: conventional versus digital systems. Radiology 1997;205(2):385–393. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 126 Ruiz-Cruces R, Perez-Martinez M, Tort Ausina I, Muñoz V, Martinez-Morillo M, Diez de los Ríos A. Organ doses, detriment and genetic risk from interventional vascular procedures in Malaga (Spain). Eur J Radiol 2000;33(1):14–23. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 127 Ruiz-Cruces R, Ruiz F, Pérez-Martínez M, López J, Tort Ausina I, de los Ríos AD. Patient dose from barium procedures. Br J Radiol 2000;73(871):752–761. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 128 Scanff P, Donadieu J, Pirard P, Aubert B. Population exposure to ionizing radiation from medical examinations in France. Br J Radiol 2008;81(963):204–213. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 129 Semelka RC, Armao DM, Elias J Jr, Huda W. Imaging strategies to reduce the risk of radiation in CT studies, including selective substitution with MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;25(5):900–909. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 130 Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, Dunn M. Doses from computed tomography (CT) examinations in the UK: 2003 review. NRPB-W67. Chilton, England: National Radiation Protection Board, 2005. Google Scholar
  • 131 Shrimpton PC, Wall BF. CT: an increasingly important slice of the medical exposure of patients. Br J Radiol 1993;66(791):1067–1068. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 132 Shrimpton PC, Wall BF, Hart D. Diagnostic medical exposures in the U.K. Appl Radiat Isot 1999;50(1):261–269. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 133 Stamm-Meyer A, Nosske D, Schnell-Inderst P, Hacker M, Hahn K, Brix G. Diagnostic nuclear medicine procedures in Germany between 1996 and 2002: application frequencies and collective effective doses. Nuklearmedizin 2006;45(1):1–9. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 134 Steele HR, Temperton DH. Technical note: patient doses received during digital subtraction angiography. Br J Radiol 1993;66(785):452–456. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 135 Stern SH, Kaczmarek RV, Spelic DC, Suleiman OH. Nationwide evaluation of x-ray trends (NEXT): 2000–2001 survey of patient radiation exposure from computed tomography (CT) examinations in the United States [abstr]. Radiology 2001;221(P):161. Google Scholar
  • 136 Szendrö G, Axelsson B, Leitz W. Computed tomography practice in Sweden, quality control, techniques and patient dose. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1995;57(1-4):469–473. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 137 Olerud HM, Torp CG, Einarsson G, et al. Use of the EC quality criteria as a common method of inspecting CT laboratories: a pilot project by the Nordic radiation protection authorities. In: Radiological protection of patients in diagnostic radiology, nuclear medicine and radiotherapy. Proceedings of an international conference held in Malaga, Spain, 26–30 March, 2001. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency, 2001. Google Scholar
  • 138 United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effect of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes. Vol 1, Sources. New York, NY: United Nations, 2000. Google Scholar
  • 139 United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes. New York, NY: United Nations, 1993. Google Scholar
  • 140 United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and effects of ionizing radiation: United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) report to the General Assembly, with scientific annexes. New York, NY: United Nations, 1988. Google Scholar
  • 141 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Nationwide Evaluation of X-ray Trends (NEXT). http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/radhlth/next.html. Accessed June 15, 2007. Google Scholar
  • 142 Van Unnik JG, Broerse JJ, Geleijns J, Jansen JT, Zoetelief J, Zweers D. Survey of CT techniques and absorbed dose in various Dutch hospitals. Br J Radiol 1997;70(832):367–371. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 143 Vañó E, González L. Approaches to establishing reference levels in interventional radiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2001;94(1-2):109–112. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 144 Vañó E, González L, Calzado A, Morán P, Delgado V. Some indicative parameters on diagnostic radiology in Spain: first dose estimations. Br J Radiol 1989;62(733):20–26. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 145 Vañó E, González L, Fernández JM, Guibelalde E. Patient dose values in interventional radiology. Br J Radiol 1995;68(815):1215–1220. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 146 Vañó E, Guibelalde E, Fernández JM, González L, Ten JI. Patient dosimetry in interventional radiology using slow films. Br J Radiol 1997;70(830):195–200. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 147 van de Putte S, Verhaegen F, Taeymans Y, Thierens H. Correlation of patient skin doses in cardiac interventional radiology with dose-area product. Br J Radiol 2000;73(869):504–513. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 148 van Soldt RT, Zweers D, van den Berg L, Geleijns J, Jansen JT, Zoetelief J. Survey of posteroanterior chest radiography in the Netherlands: patient dose and image quality. Br J Radiol 2003;76(906):398–405. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 149 Vetter S, Schultz FW, Strecker EP, Zoetelief J. Patient radiation exposure in uterine artery embolization of leiomyomata: calculation of organ doses and effective dose. Eur Radiol 2004;14(5):842–848. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 150 Wall BF, Hart D. Revised radiation doses for typical X-ray examinations: report on a recent review of doses to patients from medical X-ray examinations in the UK by NRPB. National Radiological Protection Board. Br J Radiol 1997;70(833):437–439. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 151 Wall BF. Diagnostic reference levels: the way forward. Br J Radiol 2001;74(885):785–788. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 152 Williams JR. The interdependence of staff and patient doses in interventional radiology. Br J Radiol 1997;70(833):498–503. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 153 Williams JR, Montgomery A. Measurement of dose in panoramic dental radiology. Br J Radiol 2000;73(873):1002–1006. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 154 Young KC, Burch A, Oduko JM. Radiation doses received in the UK Breast Screening Programme in 2001 and 2002. Br J Radiol 2005;78(927):207–218. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 155 Young KC, Burch A. Radiation doses received in the UK Breast Screening Programme in 1997 and 1998. Br J Radiol 2000;73(867):278–287. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 156 Zoetelief J, Geleijns J, Kicken PJ, Thijssen MA, van Unnik JG. Diagnostic reference levels derived from recent surveys on patient dose for various types of radiological examinations in the Netherlands. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 1998;80(1-3):109–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 157 Zweers D, Geleijns J, Aarts NJ, et al. Patient and staff radiation dose in fluoroscopy-guided TIPS procedures and dose reduction, using dedicated fluoroscopy exposure settings. Br J Radiol 1998;71(846):672–676. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 158 Stanford Dosimetry, LLC. RADAR home page. http://www.doseinfo-radar.com/. Accessed July 3, 2007. Google Scholar
  • 159 Brenner DJ. Radiation risks potentially associated with low-dose CT screening of adult smokers for lung cancer. Radiology 2004;231(2):440–445. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 160 Einstein AJ, Moser KW, Thompson RC, Cerqueira MD, Henzlova MJ. Radiation dose to patients from cardiac diagnostic imaging. Circulation 2007;116(11):1290–1305. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 161 Brenner DJ, Elliston CD. Estimated radiation risks potentially associated with full-body CT screening. Radiology 2004;232(3):735–738. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 162 Brenner DJ, Georgsson MA. Mass screening with CT colonography: should the radiation exposure be of concern? Gastroenterology 2005;129(1):328–337. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 163 Schindera ST, Nelson RC, Lee ER, et al. Abdominal multislice CT for obese patients: effect on image quality and radiation dose in a phantom study. Acad Radiol 2007;14(4):486–494. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 164 Mini RL, Vock P, Mury R, Schneeberger PP. Radiation exposure of patients who undergo CT of the trunk. Radiology 1995;195(2):557–562. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 165 Huda W, Vance A. Patient radiation doses from adult and pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188(2):540–546. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 166 Hurwitz LM, Reiman RE, Yoshizumi TT, et al. Radiation dose from contemporary cardiothoracic multidetector CT protocols with an anthropomorphic female phantom: implications for cancer induction. Radiology 2007;245(3):742–750. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 167 Schindera ST, Nelson RC, Mukundan S Jr, et al. Hypervascular liver tumors: low tube voltage, high tube current multi-detector row CT for enhanced detection—phantom study. Radiology 2008;246(1):125–132. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 168 Hurwitz LM, Yoshizumi TT, Goodman P, et al. Effective dose determination using an anthropomorphic phantom and metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistor technology for clinical adult body multidetector array computed tomography protocols. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007;31(4):544–549. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 169 Huda W, McCollough CH. CT of the heart radiation dose considerations. In: Schoepf UC, ed. CT of the heart. 2nd ed. Totowa, NJ: Humana, 2008. Google Scholar
  • 170 Yeoman LJ, Howarth L, Britten A, Cotterill A, Adam EJ. Gantry angulation in brain CT: dosage implications, effect on posterior fossa artifacts, and current international practice. Radiology 1992;184(1):113–116. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 171 Hopper KD, Neuman JD, King SH, Kunselman AR. Radioprotection to the eye during CT scanning. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001;22(6):1194–1198. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 172 Bassim MK, Ebert CS, Sit RC, Senior BA. Radiation dose to the eyes and parotids during CT of the sinuses. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;133(4):531–533. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 173 Neufang KF, Zanella FE, Ewen K. Radiation doses to the eye lenses in computed tomography of the orbit and petrous bones. Eur J Radiol 1987;7(3):203–205. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 174 Mukundan S Jr, Wang PI, Frush DP, et al. MOSFET dosimetry for radiation dose assessment of bismuth shielding of the eye in children. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188(6):1648–1650. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 175 Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajogopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007;298(3):317–323. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 176 Hurwitz LM, Yoshizumi TT, Reiman RE, et al. Radiation dose to the female breast from 16-MDCT body protocols. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186(6):1718–1722. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 177 Parker MS, Hui FK, Camacho MA, Chung JK, Broga DW, Sethi NN. Female breast radiation exposure during CT pulmonary angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185(5):1228–1233. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 178 Martin CJ. Effective dose: how should it be applied to medical exposures? Br J Radiol 2007;80(956):639–647. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 179 Vaño E, Fernández JM, Ten JI, et al. Transition from screen film to digital radiography: evolution of patient radiation doses at projection radiography. Radiology 2007;243(2):461–466. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 180 Samei E, Lo JY, Yoshizumi TT, et al. Comparative scatter and dose performance of slot-scan and full field digital chest radiography systems. Radiology 2005;235(3):940–949. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 181 Neofotistou V, Tsapaki V, Kottou S, Schreiner-Karoussou A, Vano E. Does digital imaging decrease patient dose? a pilot study and review of the literature. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005;117(1-3):204–210. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 182 Veldkamp WJ, Kroft LJ, Boot MV, Mertens BJ, Geleijns J. Contrast detail evaluation and dose assessment of eight digital chest radiography systems in clinical practice. Eur Radiol 2006;16(2):333–341. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 183 Kroft LJ, Veldkamp WJ, Mertens BJ, Boot MV, Geleijns J. Comparison of eight different digital chest radiography systems: variation in detection of simulated chest disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185(2):339–346. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 184 Willis CE. Strategies for dose reduction in ordinary radiographic examinations using CR and DR. Pediatr Radiol 2004;34(suppl 3):S196–S200. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 185 Fischbach F, Ricke J, Freund T, et al. Flat panel digital radiography compared with storage phosphor computed radiography: assessment of dose versus image quality in phantom studies. Invest Radiol 2002;37(11):609–614. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 186 Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Cutter GR. Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography in clinical practice. Med Phys 2002;29(5):830–834. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 187 Gosch D, Jendrass S, Scholz M, Kahn T. Radiation exposure in full field digital mammography with a selenium flat-panel detector [in German]. Rofo 2006;178(7):693–697. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 188 Bloomquist AK, Yaffe MJ, Pisano ED, et al. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I. Med Phys 2006;33(3):719–736. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 189 Spelic DC. Dose and image quality in mammography: trends during the first decade of MQSA. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/mammography/scorecard-article5.html. Accessed July 25, 2007. Google Scholar
  • 190 Thomton FJ, Paulson EK, Yoshizumi TT, Frush DP, Nelson RC. Single versus multi-detector row CT: comparison of radiation doses and dose profiles. Acad Radiol 2003;10(4):379–385. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 191 Mori S, Endo M, Nishizawa K, Murase K, Fujiwara H, Tanada S. Comparison of patient doses in 256-slice CT and 16-slice CT scanners. Br J Radiol 2006;79(937):56–61. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 192 Mori S, Nishizawa K, Ohno M, Endo M. Conversion factor for CT dosimetry to assess patient dose using a 256-slice CT scanner. Br J Radiol 2006;79(947):888–892. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 193 McCollough CH, Zink FE. Performance evaluation of a multi-slice CT system. Med Phys 1999;26(11):2223–2230. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 194 Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, Berdon W. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176(2):289–296. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 195 Chapple CL, Willis S, Frame J. Effective dose in pediatric computed tomography. Phys Med Biol 2002;47(1):107–115. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 196 Hollingsworth CL, Yoshizumi TT, Frush DP, et al. Pediatric cardiac-gated angiography: assessment of radiation dose. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189(1):12–18. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 197 Huda W. Effective doses to adult and pediatric patients. Pediatr Radiol 2002;32(4):272–279. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2008