article · Saudi Journal of Radiology
This study examined radiation safety practices in paediatric chest X-ray examinations at a tertiary hospital in Tanzania, focusing on the principles of justification and technical optimisation. Over a six-month period, 320 paediatric chest examinations were reviewed. Evaluation against established referral guidelines revealed that 36.6 percent of imaging requests were clinically unjustified, with the vast majority of these non-justified requests originating from outpatient departments. Technical optimisation was also frequently missed, with failures recorded in beam projection for 79.7 percent of cases, collimation in 69.7 percent, and patient rotation in 63.8 percent, especially among children under five years old. Furthermore, 11.6 percent of the examinations were repeated unnecessarily, over a third failed to meet optimal exposure settings, and protective shielding was entirely absent across all cases. These findings show an urgent need to reinforce radiation protection protocols.
Children are highly vulnerable to the long-term biological risks of ionizing radiation, including elevated lifetime risks of cancer and hereditary disorders. Demonstrating that a significant portion of paediatric chest radiographs are either medically unjustified or technically suboptimal highlights an urgent need for clinical training, institutional quality assurance, and adherence to safety guidelines to prevent avoidable harm in vulnerable patients.
The abstract does not indicate an application pathway or commercialisation opportunity, as it focuses entirely on an observational clinical practice audit within a hospital.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
Objectives: This study focuses on the critical "Justification and Optimization" principles of radiation protection during pediatric chest X-ray (CXR) examinations, the most common radiographic procedure, to reduce unnecessary ionizing radiation exposure and enhance safety protocols. Given that children are particularly vulnerable to the long-term biological effects of ionizing radiation, such as cancer and hereditary conditions, this research evaluates the application of these principles at a tertiary hospital in Tanzania. Methods: A hospital-based, cross-sectional study was conducted on 320 pediatric patients who underwent AP/PA CXR examinations over six months. The "justification" of CXR requests was assessed by comparing them with the "European Radiology and Nuclear Medicine Pediatric Imaging Referral Guideline." The "optimization" of radiation protection was evaluated using six radiographic criteria: X-ray beam projection, collimation, rotation, console exposure parameters, repeated examinations, and the use of thyroid and abdominopelvic shielding. The study used frequencies, percentages, measures of central tendencies, Pearson Chi-square test, logistic regression, t-tests, and ANOVA for data analysis, with significance set at p<0.05, all conducted using SPSS version 29.0. Results: Among the 320 participants, 57.2% were male, with the majority aged 1-5 years (41.9%), and a mean age of 3.2 years ± 1.6. Clinically unjustified CXR requests accounted for 36.6%, predominantly from outpatient departments (82.9%). Optimization failures were observed in AP projection (79.7%), collimation (69.7%), and rotation (63.8%) of the exams, particularly in children under five years old. Additionally, 11.6% of the CXR exams were unnecessarily repeated, and 36.9% did not meet optimal console exposure settings. No thyroid or abdominopelvic shielding was used in any examination. Conclusion: The findings reveal that approximately one-third of pediatric CXR exams were unjustified, and many were conducted using suboptimal techniques, highlighting the urgent need to strengthen the implementation of justification and optimization principles in pediatric radiography.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.55038/yb562b26
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
