Evaluation of effective dose and entrance skin dose in digital radiology

Khatereh Shamsi 1 , Ali Shabestani Monfared 2 , 3 , Mohammad Reza Deevband 4 , Behzad Mohsenzadeh 4 , Mahdi Ghorbani 4 , Kourosh Ebrahimnejad Gorji 2  and Fatemeh Niksirat 2
  • 1 Student Research Committee, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol
  • 2 Department of Medical Physics, Radiobiology and Radiation Protection, School of Medicine, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol
  • 3 Cancer Research Center, Health Research Institute, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol
  • 4 Biomedical Engineering and Medical Physics Department, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran


Background: Ionizing radiation has an indispensable role in diagnostic radiology and clinical treatments. Apparently, medical exposure in diagnostic radiology pertains to be the preeminent man-made source of radiation.

Objective: The aim of the present scientific study is to calculate the Entrance Surface Dose (ESD) and Effective Dose (ED) in digital radiography in Mazandaran province.

Materials and methods: The study was performed on 3600 patients in digital X-ray rooms 15 hospitals and the required data were collected from two age groups (10>15 years and adults) in each projection. Based on the results of this study, ESD and ED were calculated for skull (PA), skull (lateral), cervical spine (AP), cervical spine (lateral), chest (PA), chest (lateral), abdomen (AP), lumbar spine (AP), lumbar spine (lateral), pelvis (AP), thoracic spine (AP) and thoracic spine (lateral) examinations. It was calculated using PCXMC software (version 2.0).

Results: In this study, mean ESDs for the 10-15 year group varied from 0.97±0.21 mGy to 3.62±1.38 mGy for chest (PA) and lumbar spine (lateral), respectively. For the adult group varied from 1.05±0.31 to 3.85±1.44 for cervical spine (AP) and lumbar spine (lateral), respectively. And also ED value was from in the range of 10.40 µSv to 378.46 µSv for skull (PA) 10-15 year group and abdomen adults, respectively

Conclusion: This survey revealed a significant variation in the radiation dose of digital radiology examinations among hospitals in Mazandaran province. Application of a dose reference level (DRL) could be an optimization procedure for reducing the patient’s dose in Mazandaran province.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • [1] Bair W. Overview of ICRP respiratory tract model. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 1991;38(1-3):147-152.

  • [2] Hall EJ, Brenner DJ. Cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. Br J Radiol. 2008;81(965):362-378.

  • [3] Giczi F, Pellet S, Mclean I D, Meghzifene A. Testing of the implementation of the code of practice on dosimetry in X-ray diagnostic radiology: Hungarian contribution. 2008. IRPA 12: 12. International congress of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA): Strengthening radiation protection worldwide, Buenos Aires (Argentina), 19-24 Oct 2008

  • [4] Ross BC, Dixon DW. Exposure to radon in above ground workplaces the experience in great britain (GB). In: 8. International congress of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA8). 1992.

  • [5] Pahade JK, Trout AT, Zhang B, et al. What patients want to know about imaging examinations: a multiinstitutional us survey in adult and pediatric teaching hospitals on patient preferences for receiving information before radiologic examinations. Radiology. 2018;287(2):554-562.

  • [6] Beir VII, Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. The National Academies report in brief, National Academies Press (NAP); 2005.

  • [7] Mettler F, Radiological risks associated with the various uses of radiation in medicine within the context of their associated benefits. In: Radiological Protection of Patients in Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy (NMR); Proceedings of an international conference held in Málaga,Spain, 26–30 March 2001. p. 119-127.

  • [8] Ofori K, Gordon SW, Akrobortu E, et al. Estimation of adult patient doses for selected X-ray diagnostic examinations. Journal of Radiation Research and Applied Sciences. 2014;7(4):459-462.

  • [9] Ciraj O, Markovic S, Kosutic D. First results on patient dose measurements from conventional diagnostic radiology procedures in Serbia and Montenegro. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2005;113(3):330-335.

  • [10] Khoshdel-Navi D, Shabestani-Monfared A, Deevband MR, et al. Local-Reference patient dose evaluation in conventional radiography examinations in Mazandaran, Iran. Journal of Biomedical Physics & Engineering. 2016;6(2):61-70.

  • [11] Mohsenzadeh B, Deevband MR, Pouriran R. The national diagnostic Reference Level in Routine Digital Radiography Examinations in Iran. Biomedical Journal. 2016;7(5):6183-6192.

  • [12] Zoetelief J, Dance DR, Drexler G, et al. Patient dosimetry for X-rays used in medical imaging. J ICRU. 2005;5(2):1-113.

  • [13] AlSuwaidi JS, AIMazrouei NK, Pottybindu S. Patient dose monitoring in Dubai in radiography and interventional procedures. Annals of the ICRP. 2015;44(1 Suppl):249-258.

  • [14] Vano, Fernandez 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.

  • [15] Karami V, Zabihzadeh M, Shams N, et al. Optimization of Radiological Protection in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Common Conventional Radiological Procedures: Effectiveness of Increasing the Film to Focus Distance (FFD). International Journal of Pediatrics. 2017;5(4):4771-4782.

  • [16] Balonov MI, Shrimpton PC. Effective dose and risks from medical x-ray procedures. Annals of the ICRP. 2012;41(3-4):129-141.

  • [17] Sulieman A, Elhag B, Alkhorayef M, et al. Estimation of effective dose and radiation risk in pediatric barium studies procedures. Applied Radiation and Isotopes. 2018;138:40-44.

  • [18] Kutanzi K, Lumen A, Koturbash I, Miousse IR. Pediatric exposures to ionizing radiation: carcinogenic considerations. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2016;13(11):1057.

  • [19] Nahangi H, Chaparian A. Assessment of radiation risk to pediatric patients undergoing conventional X-ray examinations. Radioprotection. 2015;50(1):19-25.

  • [20] Kiljunen T, Tietavainen A, Parvainen T, et al. Organ doses and effective doses in pediatric radiography: patient-dose survey in Finland. Acta Radiologica. 2009;50(1):114-124.

  • [21] Osei EK, Darko J. A survey of organ equivalent and effective doses from diagnostic radiology procedures. ISRN Radiology. 2012;2013:204346.


Journal + Issues