Published December 1, 2018 | Version v1
Journal article Open

Clinical Analysis of Image Quality for Barium Special Investigations

Authors/Creators

  • 1. Sudan University of Sciences and Technology, College of Medical Radiologic Sciences, Al Baladya Street, P.O. Box 1908, Postal Code - 11111, Khartoum, Sudan
  • 2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology Sciences, King Khalid University, College of Medical Applied Sciences, Abha - P.O. Box 3665, Saudi Arabia
  • 3. Battrjee Medical College, Department of Radiological Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
  • 4. Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Radiology and Medical Imaging Department, Alkharj 11942, P.O. Box 422, Saudi Arabia
  • 5. Secondary Standard Dosimetry Laboratory, Biomedical Physics Department, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Description

This study aimed to report the inadequaciesintheassessment ofthe image qualityrange of some hospitals in Sudan for a selection of standard specific radiologic exams toexperience the level of matching to European Commission guidelines and to compare the findings with worldwide standards. A subjective evaluation of 319 Images obtained from 95 individual radiologic GIT Barium Studies distributed as 138, 101 and 80 images from 40 (B. Swallow), 14 (B.Meal), 15 (B. Follow Through) and 26 (B. Enema),respectively. For each procedure, theEntrance Surface Air Kerma (ESAK) values were recorded. The image quality criteria scoring system was set for each projection, where two assessors reviewed the compliance of the films with the CEC recommendations. The maximum scores obtained were found to be Fully Acceptable; all anatomical structures were found to be61.6±13.66, 53.2±28.86, 62.5±15.53 for(B. Swallow), (B.Meal+ B. Follow Through) and (B. Enema) respectively. Also, The ESAK values recorded in this hospital survey yielded, 1.4±0.48mGy, 2.3± 0.90mGy and 2.1±0.60 mGyforthe same cases respectively. The set of Image Criteria scoring system practiced in this study has been found to be convenient, and it is advised to be implemented in routine practice in the hospitals and moreover, the image quality needs to be combinedwith the patient dose.

Files

1.pdf

Files (488.0 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:98288258febec29fe706406ef35e41f9
488.0 kB Preview Download

Additional details

References

  • 1. Offiah A C, Hall CM. Evaluation of the Commission of the European Communities quality criteria for the pediatric lateral spine. Brit J Radiol. 2003;76:885–890.
  • 2. Akesson L, Håkansson J, Rohlin M, Zoger B. An evaluation of image quality for the assessment of the marginal bone level in panoramic radiography. A comparison of radiographs from different dental clinics. Swed Dent J. 1993;17.
  • 3. Bath M, Mansson LG. Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: a non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation. Brit J Radiol. 2007;80:169-176.
  • 4. Broadhead DA, Chapple, BA, Faulkner K. The impact of digital imaging on patient doses during barium studies. Brit J Radiol.1995.
  • 5. CEC European guidelines, on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. Report EUR16260 EN. Luxembourg: Office for official publications of the European Communities, 1996.
  • 6. Costas H. Kefalas, Radiographic Tests in GI. Commonly Performed Radiographic Tests in G a s t r o e n t e r o l o g y. A m e r i c a n C o l l e g e o f Gastroenterology Updated December 2012, available at URL: http://patients.gi.org/topics/gi-radiographictests/,Accessed on 22/01/2013.
  • 7. Delichas MG, Hatziioannou K, Papanastassiou E, Albanopoulou P, Chatzi E, Sioundas A, Psarrakos K. Radiation doses to patients undergoing barium meal and barium enema examinations. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2004;109(3):243-7
  • 8. Doherty P, O'Leary D, Brennan PC. Do CEC guidelines underutilize the full potential of increasing kVp as a dose-reducing tool? Eur Radiol. 2003;13:1992.
  • 9. Etaiwi. M, Shareadeh A. Barium Meal; How Care We are in Requesting this Investigation Suez Canal Univ Med J. 2008;12:124.
  • 10. González L, Vañó E, Oliete S, Manrique J, Hernáez JM, Lahuerta J, , Report of an image quality and dose Ruiz J audit according to directive 97/43/Euratom at Spanish private radiodiagnostics facilities. Br J Radiol. 1999;72(854):186-92.
  • 11. Grondin Y, Matthews K, McEntee M, Rainford L, Casey M, Tonra M, et al. Dose-reducing strategies in combination offers substantial potential benefits to females of child-bearing age requiring X-ray examination. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2004;108:123.
  • 12. Low dose extrapolation of radiation-related cancer risk. ICRPPublication 99,Ann. ICRP, 2005;35 (4).
  • 13. Jessen KA. The Quality Criteria Concept: An Introduction and Overview. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2002;94(1-2):29-32.
  • 14. Leitz WK, Mansson LG, Hedberg-Vikstrom BR, Kheddache S. In search of optimum chest radiography techniques. Br. J. Radiol. 1993;66:314.
  • 15. Peters SE, Brennan PC. Digital radiography: are the manufacturers' settings too high? Optimisation of the Kodak digital radiography system with the aid of the computed radiography dose index. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:2381.
  • 16. Rainford LA, Al-Qattan E, McFadden S, Brennan PC; CEC analysis of radiological images produced in Europe andAsia. Radiography, 2007; 13(3): 202- 209.
  • 17. Cruces R. Patient dose from barium procedures. BJR. 2000;73:752-761.
  • 18. Sulieman, AM, Elzaki C, Kappas K. Theodorou. Radiation dose measurement in gastrointestinal studies. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2011;147(1-2):118-121.
  • 19. Tingberg A, Båth M, Håkansson M, Medin J, Besjakov J, Sandborg M, Alm-Carlsson G, Mattsson S, Månsson LG, Evaluation of image quality of lumbar spine images: a comparison between FFE and VGA. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;114(1-3):53-61.
  • 20. Veldkamp WJH, Lucia JM. Kroft, Jacob Geleijns , Dose and perceived image quality in chest radiography. Europ J Radi. 2009;72:209-217.