Are the target exposure index and deviation index used efficiently?

• Published in: Radiography
• Main Authors: Guðjónsdóttir, J, Paalsson, K E, Sveinsdóttir, G P
• Other Authors: 1University of Iceland, Faculty of Medicine, Radiography, Stapa við Hringbraut 31, 101 Reykjavík, Iceland; Icelandic Radiation Safety Authority, Rauðarárstígur 10, 105 Reykjavík, Iceland. Electronic address: [e-mail]. 2Landspítali - the National University Hospital of Iceland, 101 Reykjavík, Iceland. 3University of Iceland, Faculty of Medicine, Radiography, Stapa við Hringbraut 31, 101 Reykjavík, Iceland. Electronic address: [e-mail].
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier 2021
• Subjects: Digital radiography; Dose indicator; Dose optimization; Radiation exposure; Iceland
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/2336/621911; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2021.02.012

To access publisher's full text version of this article click on the hyperlink below Exposure index (EI) is important to evaluate correct exposure in radiography and thus important for image quality. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the target exposure index (EIT) and deviation index (DI) were used efficiently. Introduction: Exposure index (EI) is important to evaluate correct exposure in radiography and thus important for image quality. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the target exposure index (EIT) and deviation index (DI) were used efficiently. Methods: Radiography departments in Iceland, using <10 years old equipment, were invited to participate. For each x-ray unit, admin users were asked about the use of EIT and data was gathered on EIT for five body parts (BP); lumbar spine, chest, hip, knee and hand. For each of the five BP, 100 examinations from the past year were selected randomly (or all, if < 100). The EI from one predefined view was recorded and the corresponding DI calculated. Results: A total of ten x-ray units, from four manufacturers and located at eight departments, were included in the study. The departments involved are comprised of a university hospital, smaller hospitals, and miscellaneous private departments. Two departments (25%) had not set EIT, five (62.5%) used default values and only one had revised EIT values. In four departments (50%) radiographers favored "acceptable EI range" over DI. The mean EI was significantly different (p < 0.05) from the EIT in the majority of the five BP, in four out of the six departments that had defined EIT. In total 30% of images from all departments combined had DI outside the range of -3.0 < DI < +3.0. The standard deviation of DI was from 1.4 to 2.7. Conclusion: The study shows that the EIT and DI are not used efficiently, regardless of equipment vendor or department characteristics. Implications for practice: Current recommendations on targeting the mean DI of 0 need to be reinforced. Theoretical ...