Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Reference values for diagnostic radiology: application and impact.

Joel E Gray1, Benjamin R Archer, Priscilla F Butler

  • 1Landauer, 2 Science Road, Glenwood, IL 60425, USA. jgray@landauerinc.com

Radiology
|March 11, 2005
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Enhancing the OncoSim-Breast model using Canadian breast density information.

Health reports·2026
Same author

General Radiographic Artifacts: A Visual Review.

Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc·2026
Same author

Occupational Protection in Interventional Radiology. A Joint Guideline of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe and the Society of Interventional Radiology.

Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR·2026
Same author

Occupational Protection in Interventional Radiology. A Joint Guideline of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe and the Society of Interventional Radiology.

Cardiovascular and interventional radiology·2026
Same author

TMIST Lead-In Randomized Trial of Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography: Results in Women Ineligible for the Full TMIST Trial Due to Age (40-44 or ≥ 75 Years Old).

AJR. American journal of roentgenology·2026
Same author

Which slot scanning device is best for low-dose radiographs in pediatric scoliosis? A pilot study.

Spine deformity·2025
Same journal

Noncontrast Abbreviated MRI for Post-TACE Treatment Response Monitoring of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Based on Ancillary Features from LI-RADS.

Radiology·2026
Same journal

Response Evaluation Criteria in Bone Metastases: Performance and Association of Response Classifications with Survival Outcomes.

Radiology·2026
Same journal

Entropy for Prediction of MACEs in Myocarditis: A Cardiac MRI-based Biomarker of Myocardial Tissue Heterogeneity.

Radiology·2026
Same journal

AI for Radiology: A Primer Part II. Interacting with AI Results.

Radiology·2026
Same journal

Hyperdense Capsule Sign at Noncontrast CT as an Indication for Middle Meningeal Artery Embolization for Nonacute Subdural Hematomas: A MAGIC-MT Trial Post Hoc Analysis.

Radiology·2026
Same journal

Sawtooth Cardiomyopathy: The Tiger Heart.

Radiology·2026
See all related articles

Reference values (RVs) help assess radiation doses from medical imaging equipment. Exceeding these benchmarks indicates higher radiation use than 80% of similar equipment, prompting investigation and optimization for patient safety.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Physics
  • Radiological Health

Background:

  • Reference values (RVs) are established benchmarks for radiation doses in medical imaging.
  • These values are crucial for comparing equipment performance and ensuring consistent radiation safety standards.
  • The American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) recommends RVs for various radiographic and CT procedures.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To outline the development and application of Reference Values (RVs) for radiation doses in medical imaging.
  • To provide a framework for comparing radiation doses across different radiographic equipment.
  • To guide medical physicists in evaluating and optimizing imaging systems to reduce patient radiation exposure.

Main Methods:

  • RVs are derived from the Nationwide Evaluation of X-ray Trends (NEXT) survey data.

Related Experiment Videos

  • The AAPM selects RVs approximating the 80th percentile of survey distributions.
  • Annual dose measurements using standard phantoms are recommended for specific radiographic projections.

    • Main Results:

    • RVs serve as a benchmark, with equipment exceeding them using higher radiation doses than 80% of surveyed equipment.
    • Exceeding RVs necessitates an investigation into the cause of elevated radiation doses.
    • The findings highlight the utility of RVs in identifying underperforming or inefficient imaging equipment.

    Conclusions:

    • RVs are essential tools for quality assurance in diagnostic imaging.
    • Implementing RVs aids in optimizing imaging systems to minimize patient radiation doses.
    • Regular monitoring and comparison against RVs ensure adherence to radiation safety standards across institutions.