skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: TU-FG-209-08: Distribution of the Deviation Index (DI) in Digital Radiography Practices Across the United States

Abstract

Purpose: To characterize the distribution of the deviation index (DI) in digital radiography practices across the United States. Methods: DI data was obtained from 10 collaborating institutions in the United States between 2012 and 2015. Each institution complied with the requirements of the Institutional Review Board at their site. DI data from radiographs of the body parts chest, abdomen, pelvis and extremity were analyzed for anteroposterior, posteroanterior, lateral, and decubitus views. The DI data was analyzed both in aggregate and stratified by exposure control method, image receptor technology, patient age, and participating site for each body part and view. The number of exposures with DI falling within previously published control limits for DI and descriptive statistics were calculated. Results: DI data from 505,930 radiographic exposures was analyzed. The number of exposures with DI falling within published control limits for DI varied from 10 to 20% for adult patients and 10 to 23% for pediatric patients for different body parts and views. Mean DI values averaged over other parameters for radiographs of the abdomen, chest, pelvis, and extremities ranged from 0.3 to 1.0, −0.6 to 0.5, 0.8, and −0.9 to 0.5 for the different adult views and ranged from −1.6 tomore » −0.1, −0.3 to 0.5, −0.1, −0.2 to 1.4 for the different pediatric views, respectively (DI data was solicited only for anteroposterior view of pelvis). Standard deviation values of DI from individual sites ranged from 1.3 to 3.6 and 1.3 to 3.0 for the different adult and pediatric views, respectively. Also of interest was that target exposure indicators varied by up to a factor of 6 between sites for certain body parts and views. Conclusion: Previously published DI control limits do not reflect the state of clinical practice in digital radiography. Mean DI and target exposure indicators are targets for quality improvement efforts in radiography.« less

Authors:
;  [1];  [2];  [3];  [4];  [5];  [6];  [7];  [8];  [9];  [10]; ;  [11];  [12];  [13];  [14]
  1. UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (United States)
  2. Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA (United States)
  3. The Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH (United States)
  4. The Cleveland Clinic, Beachwood, OH (United States)
  5. University Florida, Jacksonville Beach, FL (United States)
  6. University of Washington, Seattle, WA (United States)
  7. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina (United States)
  8. St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, TN (United States)
  9. Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA (United States)
  10. Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT (United States)
  11. Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI (United States)
  12. AGFA HealthCare, Greenville, SC (United States)
  13. FUJIFILM Medical Systems U.S.A., Inc., Weston, CT (United States)
  14. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Bellaire, TX (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22654010
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; BIOMEDICAL RADIOGRAPHY; DENTISTRY; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGES; PATIENTS; PEDIATRICS; PELVIS

Citation Formats

Jones, A, Shepard, S, Dave, J, Fisher, R, Hulme, K, Rill, L, Zamora, D, Woodward, A, Brady, S, MacDougall, R, Goldman, L, Lang, S, Peck, D, Apgar, B, Uzenoff, R, and Willis, C. TU-FG-209-08: Distribution of the Deviation Index (DI) in Digital Radiography Practices Across the United States. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4957578.
Jones, A, Shepard, S, Dave, J, Fisher, R, Hulme, K, Rill, L, Zamora, D, Woodward, A, Brady, S, MacDougall, R, Goldman, L, Lang, S, Peck, D, Apgar, B, Uzenoff, R, & Willis, C. TU-FG-209-08: Distribution of the Deviation Index (DI) in Digital Radiography Practices Across the United States. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4957578.
Jones, A, Shepard, S, Dave, J, Fisher, R, Hulme, K, Rill, L, Zamora, D, Woodward, A, Brady, S, MacDougall, R, Goldman, L, Lang, S, Peck, D, Apgar, B, Uzenoff, R, and Willis, C. Wed . "TU-FG-209-08: Distribution of the Deviation Index (DI) in Digital Radiography Practices Across the United States". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4957578.
@article{osti_22654010,
title = {TU-FG-209-08: Distribution of the Deviation Index (DI) in Digital Radiography Practices Across the United States},
author = {Jones, A and Shepard, S and Dave, J and Fisher, R and Hulme, K and Rill, L and Zamora, D and Woodward, A and Brady, S and MacDougall, R and Goldman, L and Lang, S and Peck, D and Apgar, B and Uzenoff, R and Willis, C},
abstractNote = {Purpose: To characterize the distribution of the deviation index (DI) in digital radiography practices across the United States. Methods: DI data was obtained from 10 collaborating institutions in the United States between 2012 and 2015. Each institution complied with the requirements of the Institutional Review Board at their site. DI data from radiographs of the body parts chest, abdomen, pelvis and extremity were analyzed for anteroposterior, posteroanterior, lateral, and decubitus views. The DI data was analyzed both in aggregate and stratified by exposure control method, image receptor technology, patient age, and participating site for each body part and view. The number of exposures with DI falling within previously published control limits for DI and descriptive statistics were calculated. Results: DI data from 505,930 radiographic exposures was analyzed. The number of exposures with DI falling within published control limits for DI varied from 10 to 20% for adult patients and 10 to 23% for pediatric patients for different body parts and views. Mean DI values averaged over other parameters for radiographs of the abdomen, chest, pelvis, and extremities ranged from 0.3 to 1.0, −0.6 to 0.5, 0.8, and −0.9 to 0.5 for the different adult views and ranged from −1.6 to −0.1, −0.3 to 0.5, −0.1, −0.2 to 1.4 for the different pediatric views, respectively (DI data was solicited only for anteroposterior view of pelvis). Standard deviation values of DI from individual sites ranged from 1.3 to 3.6 and 1.3 to 3.0 for the different adult and pediatric views, respectively. Also of interest was that target exposure indicators varied by up to a factor of 6 between sites for certain body parts and views. Conclusion: Previously published DI control limits do not reflect the state of clinical practice in digital radiography. Mean DI and target exposure indicators are targets for quality improvement efforts in radiography.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4957578},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Wed Jun 15 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}