Abstract gepubliceerd in Elsevier: Introduction: Recent research has identified the issue of ‘dose creep’ in diagnostic radiography and claims it is due to the introduction of CR and DR technology. More recently radiographers have reported that they do not regularly manipulate exposure factors for different sized patients and rely on pre-set exposures. The aim of the study was to identify any variation in knowledge and radiographic practice across Europe when imaging the chest, abdomen and pelvis using digital imaging. Methods: A random selection of 50% of educational institutes (n ¼ 17) which were affiliated members of the European Federation of Radiographer Societies (EFRS) were contacted via their contact details supplied on the EFRS website. Each of these institutes identified appropriate radiographic staff in their clinical network to complete an online survey via SurveyMonkey. Data was collected on exposures used for 3 common x-ray examinations using CR/DR, range of equipment in use, staff educational training and awareness of DRL. Descriptive statistics were performed with the aid of Excel and SPSS version 21. Results: A response rate of 70% was achieved from the affiliated educational members of EFRS and a rate of 55% from the individual hospitals in 12 countries across Europe. Variation was identified in practice when imaging the chest, abdomen and pelvis using both CR and DR digital systems. There is wide variation in radiographer training/education across countries.
DOCUMENT
Review: With great interest we have read the paper “Pregnancy Screening before Diagnostic Radiography in Emergency Department; an Educational Review” by A.I. Abushouk et al. (1). We agree with the authors that unnecessary fetal radiation exposure should be avoided and that pregnancy screening can be a means to accomplish this. However, in their paper the authors suggest in several instances that radiological imaging during pregnancy can lead to teratogenic effects. In the Abstract it is stated: “Radiation exposure during pregnancy may have serious teratogenic effects to the fetus. Therefore, checking the pregnancy status before imaging women of child bearing age can protect against these effects.”, and in the Introduction: “Therefore, checking the pregnancy status before imaging women of child bearing age can protect against radiation teratogenic effects.” We strongly disagree with these statements: common radiological imaging will usually not give rise to fetal radiation doses high enough to lead to teratogenesis. The statements in the paper may lead to unnecessary worrying of pregnant women and it may discourage themfrom undergoing medically necessary radiological examinations.
DOCUMENT
INTRODUCTION: In the Netherlands, hospitals have difficulty in implementing the formal procedure of comparing radiation dose values to Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs).METHODS: To support the hospitals, train radiography students, and carry out a nationwide dose survey, diagnostic radiography students performed 125 DRL comparisons for nine different procedures in 29 radiology departments. Students were instructed at three Dutch Universities of Applied Sciences with a radiography programme and supervised by medical physicists from the participating hospitals.RESULTS: After a pilot study in the western part of the country in eight hospitals, this study was enlarged to involve 21 hospitals from all over the Netherlands. The 86 obtained dose comparisons fall below the DRLs in 97% of all cases. This very high compliance may have been enhanced by the voluntary participation of hospitals that are confident about their performance.CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the current DRLs that were not based on a national survey, may need to be updated, sometimes to half their current value. For chest and pelvis examinations the DRLs could be lowered from 12 and 300 μGy·m 2 to the 75-percentile values found in this study of 5,9 and 188 μGy·m 2, respectively.
DOCUMENT
Goed om te zien dat je geïnteresseerd bent in onze content. Onafhankelijke informatie is alleen niet gratis. Je mag onze artikelen uitsluitend kopiëren voor persoonlijk gebruik. Zo zal je geen inbreuk maken op onze Algemene Voorwaarden. Vragen? Stuur een e-mail naar: marketing@ntvg.nl.Voor het instellen van de optimale therapie van brandwonden – conservatief of operatief – is een vroege, accurate bepaling van de brandwonddiepte belangrijk. ‘Laser Doppler imaging’ (LDI) is een techniek waarmee een nauwkeurige inschatting van de brandwonddiepte kan worden gemaakt door het meten van de dermale perfusie. Hoewel is aangetoond dat de keuze voor het wel of niet verrichten van een operatie met LDI eerder kan worden gemaakt, heeft dit niet geleid tot een kortere tijd tot wondgenezing of kostenbesparing in de Nederlandse brandwondenzorg. LDI wordt in alle Nederlandse brandwondencentra gebruikt. Bij twijfel over de brandwonddiepte in de eerste of tweede lijn is doorverwijzing naar een brandwondencentrum raadzaam.
LINK
BACKGROUND: Early accurate assessment of burn depth is important to determine the optimal treatment of burns. The method most used to determine burn depth is clinical assessment, which is the least expensive, but not the most accurate.Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) is a technique with which a more accurate (>95%) estimate of burn depth can be made by measuring the dermal perfusion. The actual effect on therapeutic decisions, clinical outcomes and the costs of the introduction of this device, however, are unknown. Before we decide to implement LDI in Dutch burn care, a study on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LDI is necessary.METHODS/DESIGN: A multicenter randomised controlled trial will be conducted in the Dutch burn centres: Beverwijk, Groningen and Rotterdam. All patients treated as outpatient or admitted to a burn centre within 5 days post burn, with burns of indeterminate depth (burns not obviously superficial or full thickness) and a total body surface area burned of ≤ 20% are eligible. A total of 200 patients will be included. Burn depth will be diagnosed by both clinical assessment and laser Doppler imaging between 2-5 days post burn in all patients. Subsequently, patients are randomly divided in two groups: 'new diagnostic strategy' versus 'current diagnostic strategy'. The results of the LDI-scan will only be provided to the treating clinician in the 'new diagnostic strategy' group. The main endpoint is the effect of LDI on wound healing time.In addition we measure: a) the effect of LDI on other patient outcomes (quality of life, scar quality), b) the effect of LDI on diagnostic and therapeutic decisions, and c) the effect of LDI on total (medical and non-medical) costs and cost-effectiveness.DISCUSSION: This trial will contribute to our current knowledge on the use of LDI in burn care and will provide evidence on its cost-effectiveness.TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01489540.
DOCUMENT
Introduction In the Netherlands, hospitals have difficulty in implementing the formal procedure of comparing radiation dose values to Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs).
LINK
Medical imaging practice changed dramatically with the introduction of digital imaging. Although digital imaging has many advantages, it also has made it easier to delete images that are not of diagnostic quality. Mistakes in imaging—from improper patient positioning, patient movement during the examination, and selecting improper equipment—could go undetected when images are deleted. Such an approach would preclude a reject analysis from which valuable lessons could be learned. In the analog days of radiography, saving the rejected films and then analyzing them was common practice among radiographers. In principle, reject analysis can be carried out easier and with better tools (ie, software) in the digital era, provided that rejected images are stored for analysis. Reject analysis and the subsequent lessons learned could reduce the number of repeat images, thus reducing imaging costs and decreasing patient exposure to radiation. The purpose of this study, which was conducted by order of the Dutch Healthcare Inspectorate, was to investigate whether hospitals in the Netherlands store and analyze failed imaging and, if so, to identify the tools used to analyze those images.
DOCUMENT
Incidental findings on low-dose CT images obtained during hybrid imaging are an increasing phenomenon as CT technology advances. Understanding the diagnostic value of incidental findings along with the technical limitations is important when reporting image results and recommending follow-up, which may result in an additional radiation dose from further diagnostic imaging and an increase in patient anxiety. This study assessed lesions incidentally detected on CT images acquired for attenuation correction on two SPECT/CT systems.METHODS: An anthropomorphic chest phantom containing simulated lesions of varying size and density was imaged on an Infinia Hawkeye 4 and a Symbia T6 using the low-dose CT settings applied for attenuation correction acquisitions in myocardial perfusion imaging. Twenty-two interpreters assessed 46 images from each SPECT/CT system (15 normal images and 31 abnormal images; 41 lesions). Data were evaluated using a jackknife alternative free-response receiver-operating-characteristic analysis (JAFROC).RESULTS: JAFROC analysis showed a significant difference (P < 0.0001) in lesion detection, with the figures of merit being 0.599 (95% confidence interval, 0.568, 0.631) and 0.810 (95% confidence interval, 0.781, 0.839) for the Infinia Hawkeye 4 and Symbia T6, respectively. Lesion detection on the Infinia Hawkeye 4 was generally limited to larger, higher-density lesions. The Symbia T6 allowed improved detection rates for midsized lesions and some lower-density lesions. However, interpreters struggled to detect small (5 mm) lesions on both image sets, irrespective of density.CONCLUSION: Lesion detection is more reliable on low-dose CT images from the Symbia T6 than from the Infinia Hawkeye 4. This phantom-based study gives an indication of potential lesion detection in the clinical context as shown by two commonly used SPECT/CT systems, which may assist the clinician in determining whether further diagnostic imaging is justified.
DOCUMENT
Background: Dermoscopy is known to increase the diagnostic accuracy of pigmented skin lesions (PSLs) when used by trained professionals. The effect of dermoscopy training on the diagnostic ability of dermal therapists (DTs) has not been studied so far. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate whether DTs, in comparison with general practitioners (GPs), benefited from a training programme including dermoscopy, in both their ability to differentiate between different forms of PSL and to assign the correct therapeutic strategy. Methods: In total, 24 DTs and 96 GPs attended a training programme on PSLs. Diagnostic skills as well as therapeutic strategy were assessed, prior to the training (pretest) and after the training (post-test) using clinical images alone, as well as after the addition of dermatoscopic images (integrated post-test). Bayesian hypothesis testing was used to determine statistical significance of differences between pretest, post-test and integrated post-test scores. Results: Both the DTs and the GPs demonstrated benefit from the training: at the integrated post-test, the median proportion of correctly diagnosed PSLs was 73% (range 30–90) for GPs and 63% (range 27–80) for DTs. A statistically significant difference between pretest results and integrated test results was seen, with a Bayes factor>100. At 12 percentage points higher, the GPs outperformed DTs in the accuracy of detecting PSLs. Conclusions: The study shows that a training programme focusing on PSLs while including dermoscopy positively impacts detection of PSLs by DTs and GPs. This training programme could form an integral part of the training of DTs in screening procedures, although additional research is needed.
DOCUMENT
Abstract—A survey about radiation protection in pediatric radiology was conducted among 22 general and seven children’s hospitals in the Netherlands. Questions concerned, for example, child protocols used for CT, fluoroscopy and x-ray imaging, number of images and scans made, radiation doses and measures taken to reduce these, special tools used for children, and quality assurance issues. The answers received from 27 hospitals indicate that radiation protection practices differ considerably between general and children’s hospitals but also between the respective general and children’s hospitals. It is recommended that hospitals consult each other to come up with more uniform best practices. Few hospitals were able to supply doses that can be compared to the national Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs). The ones that could be compared exceeded the DRLs in one in five cases, which is more than was expected beforehand.
LINK
