MARATTO

article · European journal of applied sciences

Dosimetry Evaluation of Conventional Radiology Examinations in Adults in Benin

Abstract

Introduction and objective: Exposure to ionizing radiation raises concerns regarding radiation protection. The objective of this study was to evaluate the entry dose of X-rays during conventional radiography examinations in adult patients in Benin. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted over an eleven-month period, from January to November 2025. The study was carried out in 34 healthcare facilities distributed across the national territory and equipped with functional conventional radiography units. Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) were defined as the 75th percentile of entry dose (ED) and Dose–Area Product (DAP) values for each type of examination. Results: Pulmonary diseases were the most frequently investigated conditions among adult patients, with 966 patients examined, representing 27.52% of all examination indications. Posteroanterior chest radiography accounted for 34.8% of the examinations performed. The national 75th centile values (DRLs) of the entry dose (mGy) by examination type were 0.70, 17.28, 2.35, and 3.63 for chest, lumbar spine, cervical spine, and skull radiography, respectively. The national 75th centile values (DRLs) of dose–area product (mGy·cm²) by examination type were 1,120, 25,592, 938, and 1,438 for chest, lumbar spine, cervical spine, and skull radiography, respectively. Conclusion: The doses delivered to patients during conventional radiography examinations in Benin were significantly higher than international standards. Therefore, it is necessary to implement a process of procedural harmonization and dose optimization based on the established diagnostic reference levels.

Research topics

  • Radiation Dose and Imaging
  • Radioactivity and Radon Measurements
  • Digital Radiography and Breast Imaging

Sustainable Development Goals

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.14738/aivp.1401.19783

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

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.