|
Topic |
Section |
Page No. |
Paragraph |
Line number |
Comment |
||
|
Executive Summary |
1.Introduction |
9 |
a |
6 |
ICRP (2001) -> ICRP Supporting Guidance 2 (2001) |
||
|
|
|
9 |
b |
11 |
Should DRLs apply to imaging that takes places during radiotherapy procedures? |
||
|
|
2.DRLs |
10 |
g |
3 |
‘Standard sized patient’ needs to be defined in the Glossary |
||
|
|
2.DRLs |
10 |
h |
16 |
What does image quality evaluation mean? |
||
|
|
2.DRLs |
10 |
i |
20-24 |
Is the median value the one to use? |
||
|
|
3 DRL quantities |
11 |
m |
1-3 |
What does this statement mean? |
||
|
Glossary |
|
|
|
|
Should be expanded to cover topics such as image quality, patient size |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
All acronyms used in the document need to be defined somewhere. |
||
|
|
DRL quantity |
14 |
|
19-28 |
No mention of administered activity as a DRL quantity |
||
|
Introduction |
|
19 |
|
31 |
“of” missing after word Values |
||
|
|
|
24 |
22-24 |
|
Stratification of exams types is complicated by lack of common protocol naming convention masking it difficult to compare protocols |
||
|
|
Image quality must not be neglected |
24 |
26 |
|
Image quality need to be defined |
||
|
|
|
25 |
27 |
|
This implies appropriate diagnostic information from insufficient image quality. |
||
|
|
Rationale for this report |
26 |
35 |
|
Assumption is DRL survey has produced diagnostic quality image |
||
|
|
|
27 |
|
|
see stratification comment |
||
|
Considerations in conducting surveys to establish DRLs |
Introduction |
32 |
|
8 |
Need for a set of common procedures internationally |
||
|
|
|
33 |
43 |
28 |
supplements to a professional judgement -> supplements to professional judgement |
||
|
|
|
33 |
44 |
31 |
Ka,e/Ka,i/Ka,r no subscript throughout? |
||
|
|
|
34 |
46 |
|
Do national DRLs have precedents over ones establish in States? |
||
|
|
|
34 |
48 |
|
Need a clear definition for DRLs in nuc med. 75% or 50% |
||
|
|
|
36 |
Table 2.1 |
|
Nuclear Medicine surveys? |
||
|
Survey Considerations |
Responsibility for conducting surveys and establishing DRLs |
37 |
66 |
|
Titles should comply with those in GSR-3 |
||
|
|
Patients |
41 |
88 |
12 |
At least 20 patients contradicts page 121 para 33 line 5 |
||
|
|
|
41 |
88 |
19 |
Breast size throughout doc compared with compressed breast thickness. ?? |
||
|
|
Examinations & DRL quantities |
41 |
89 |
|
What do all groups of operators mean? |
||
|
Determining DRL values |
Distribution of DRL quantities |
45 |
102 |
21 |
Minimal effect or none? |
||
|
|
|
46 |
102 |
2-4 |
Definition of outliers? |
||
|
|
Image Quality |
51 |
19 |
14 |
radiologists agree with to produce -> radiologists agree produce |
||
|
|
|
51 |
122 |
|
needs to be expanded and further addressed |
||
|
Radiography & Diagnostic Fluoroscopy |
Mammography |
|
|
|
Whole section lacks depths and no guidance on what should be measured. Stratification of metrics? |
||
|
|
|
61 |
149 |
36 |
Minimal compressed breast thickness should be used |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
Interventional Procedures |
Introduction |
67 |
165 |
17-18 |
there is a variation in dose with angulation that must be taken into account |
||
|
|
Complexity analyses |
67 |
167 |
32 |
Typo “patients” |
||
|
Digital Radiography, CT, Nuclear Medicine & Multimodality Procedures |
|
78 |
185 |
40 |
Delete comma after “Bedside” |
||
|
|
Considerations for DRL surveys in CT |
83 |
211 |
|
Inconsistent numbers in CT DRL surveys |
||
|
|
DRLs in planar and SPECT NM imaging |
85 |
221 |
|
Is ICRP indorsing this approach? Rec max act a DRL? |
||
|
|
Considerations for DRL surveys for NM |
86 |
226 |
|
Is this developing DRLs or applying DRLs? |
||
|
Paediatrics |
Paediatric DRLs for radiography, NM and interventional procedures |
98 |
266 |
|
Is it suggested to use EANM or USA information as a start for local DRLs in nuc med |
||
|
Application of DRLs in Clinical Practice |
|
101 |
|
5 |
Definition of clinical audits |
||
|
|
|
102 |
|
3 |
Where is the evidence? |
||
|
|
Setting up an audit program in healthcare facility |
104 |
271 |
21 |
What does necessary mean in this case |
||
|
|
|
105 |
275 |
|
Should be Fig 7.1 |
||
|
|
Factors to consider if a DRL value is exceeded |
107 |
287 |
10 |
should be investigated |
||
|
|
7.5.2 CT protocols |
113 |
318 |
8 |
into account how the interaction -> into account the interaction |
||
|
|
7.8 Outcome of the investigation |
115 |
331 |
33 |
a risk -> a significant risk (??) |
||
|
Summary of the Commission’s Recommendations |
DRL quantities |
119 |
16 |
18 |
New metric (5cm) not reference anywhere else in document |
||
|
|
DRL surveys |
121 |
33 |
4 |
Issues associated patient numbers |
||
|
|
Setting DRL values |
122 |
44 |
1 |
Does this apply to nuclear medicine? |
||