Faculty, Staff and Student Publications

Publication Date

2-1-2026

Journal

Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics

DOI

10.1002/acm2.70458

PMID

41582844

PMCID

PMC12833689

PubMedCentral® Posted Date

1-26-2026

PubMedCentral® Full Text Version

Post-print

Abstract

Background: The ACR Diagnostic Fluoroscopy Dose Index Registry (DIR-Fluoro) is expanding to include diagnostic fluoroscopy. Variations in dose reference points and overhead radiography events may introduce unique challenges for benchmarking.

Purpose: To survey the technological status and dosimetric performance of fluoroscopes participating in the DIR-Fluoro pilot project, focusing on longitudinal stability and variability of fluoroscopic dose reporting accuracy across multiple institutions and vendors.

Methods: Sixty-six fluoroscopic systems from nine institutions (24 facilities) were surveyed for facility type, fluoroscope type, image receptor type, age, dose reporting capabilities, and other key features. Of these, 56 were evaluable. Semi-annual measurements assessed reference air kerma (Ka,r) and air kerma area product (PKA) accuracy. Linear mixed-effects models evaluated changes in dose accuracy over time, incorporating system-specific random effects; models were compared using likelihood ratio testing. Radiation Dose Structured Reports (RDSR) contents were investigated to understand the challenges in benchmarking diagnostic fluoroscopy dose indices.

Results: Nearly 80% of units were tube-under-table fluoroscopes. Average age was 9.6 ± 5.2 years. Sixty-four percent of the units produced RDSRs. Median deviations for Ka,r and PKA were 1%-4%. Accuracy of PKA and Ka,r remained stable, with no significant time-dependent drift for RDSR-capable systems (p > 0.05). Incorporating detector type significantly improved performance for PKA measurements (p < 0.05 for all datasets); Ka,r models were generally best fit by simpler models (p > 0.05 for 3 of 4 datasets). Major discrepancies in RDSRs were observed, including differences in Ka,r reference point definitions and in event-level data. Overhead radiography exposures were not well distinguished from fluoroscope exposures. These issues resulted in inconsistencies in reported Ka,r values.

Conclusion: Fluoroscopic dose indices were accurate and stable over time. Differences in RDSR availability result in data biased to newer systems with flat panel detectors. Discrepancies in RDSR content and inconsistent reference point definitions necessitate use of PKA as the primary benchmark metric.

Keywords

Fluoroscopy, Humans, Benchmarking, Radiation Dosage, Pilot Projects, Registries, Radiometry, Radiology, United States, Societies, Medical, Dose Index Registry, Fluoroscopy, Radiation Dose Monitoring, Radiation Dose Structured Report

Published Open-Access

yes

Download

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.