Comparing prediction models for radiographic exposures

During radiographic exposures the milliampere-seconds (mAs), kilovoltage peak (kVp) and source-to-image distance can be adjusted for variations in patient thicknesses. Several exposure adjustment systems have been developed to assist with this selection. This study compares the accuracy of four systems to predict the required mAs for pelvic radiographs taken on a direct digital radiography system (DDR). Sixty radiographs were obtained by adjusting mAs to compensate for varying combinations of source-to-image distance (SID), kVp and patient thicknesses. The 25% rule, the DuPont™ Bit System and the DigiBit system were compared to determine which of these three most accurately predicted the mAs required for an increase in patient thickness. Similarly, the 15% rule, the DuPont™ Bit System and the DigiBit system were compared for an increase in kVp. The exposure index (EI) was used as an indication of exposure to the DDR. For each exposure combination the mAs was adjusted until an EI of 1500+/-2% was achieved. The 25% rule was the most accurate at predicting the mAs required for an increase in patient thickness, with 53% of the mAs predictions correct. The DigiBit system was the most accurate at predicting mAs needed for changes in kVp, with 33% of predictions correct. This study demonstrated that the 25% rule and DigiBit system were the most accurate predictors of mAs required for an increase in patient thickness and kVp respectively. The DigiBit system worked well in both scenarios as it is a single exposure adjustment system that considers a variety of exposure factors.

[1]  Charles E. Willis,et al.  Computed radiography: a higher dose? , 2002, Pediatric Radiology.

[2]  William Ching,et al.  DigiBit: A System for Adjusting Radiographic Exposure Factors in the Digital Era. , 2015, Radiologic technology.

[3]  D. Newman,et al.  The relationships between kV, mAs and thickness in film-based radiography: 25% and 15% rules. OK? , 1998 .

[4]  S. Evans,et al.  Recommended Standards For The Routine Performance Testing of Diagnostic X-Ray Imaging Systems , 1998 .

[5]  C J Martin,et al.  Calibrating automatic exposure control devices for digital radiography , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[6]  Quinn B. Carroll,et al.  Fuchs's Radiographic Exposure, Processing and Quality Control , 1993 .

[7]  Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop,et al.  Digital radiography: the balance between image quality and required radiation dose. , 2009, European journal of radiology.

[8]  P C Brennan,et al.  Dose-reducing strategies in combination offers substantial potential benefits to females requiring X-ray examination. , 2004, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[9]  D S Artz Computed radiography for the radiological technologist. , 1997, Seminars in roentgenology.

[10]  R. Davidson,et al.  Exposure creep in computed radiography: a longitudinal study. , 2012, Academic radiology.

[11]  Gerhart S. Schwarz Unit-step radiography , 1961 .

[12]  J A Seibert,et al.  Computed radiography X-ray exposure trends. , 1995, Academic radiology.

[13]  L Barozzi,et al.  Comparison of radiation doses to patients undergoing standard radiographic examinations with conventional screen-film radiography, computed radiography and direct digital radiography. , 2006, The British journal of radiology.

[14]  Menglong Zhang,et al.  A method to derive appropriate exposure parameters from target exposure index and patient thickness in pediatric digital radiography , 2012, Pediatric Radiology.