OBJECTIVE: To present a data analysis toolkit that may be utilized with the purpose of radiation protection of hospital inpatients and workers in areas where mobile apparatuses are used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An Excel^® ActiveSheet was utilized to develop a computational toolkit with exposure measurements to generate a database of shape factors and to calculate the air kerma around hospital beds. The initial database included data collected with three mobile apparatuses. A non-anthropomorphic phantom was utilized and exposure measurements were performed on a (4.2 × 4.2) m² mesh-grid at 0.3 m steps. RESULTS: The toolkit calculates the air kerma (associated with patients' radiation exposure and with ambient equivalent dose) under secondary radiation. For distances lower than 60.0 cm, values above the maximum ambient equivalent dose threshold defined for radiation free areas (0.5 mSv/year) were verified. Data collected at 2.1 m have always presented values lower than 12% of that threshold. CONCLUSION: The toolkit can aid in the radiological protection of patients and workers, provided it is combined with appropriate data collection, since it allows the determination of radiation free areas around beds in rooms where mobile X-ray apparatuses are utilized.

Keywords: Radiology; Radiological protection; Software toolkit.

OBJECTIVE: To comprehensively and impartially analyze the scientific evidence available for establishing diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) in interventional radiology.
METHOD: This was a systematic review conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The search focused on studies related to interventional radiology and DRLs in PubMed/Medline and Embase. Studies involving computed tomography-guided procedures, studies with incomplete data, and systematic reviews were excluded. Two independent reviewers evaluated the studies, resolving discrepancies with a third reviewer. Articles were tabulated with information such as title, publication year, procedures, DRL values, and type of equipment used.
RESULTS: A total of 475 articles were identified. After duplicates had been excluded and eligibility criteria had been applied, the final sample comprised 30 articles. Most DRL values (73%) were reported at the local level, as defined by International Commission on Radiological Protection criteria, representing typical dose values from a sample within one or a few institutions. A total of 113 procedures were identified, with endovascular aneurysm repair and nephrostomy being the most frequently reported. We identified DRLs at national and regional scales, predominantly within Europe. Influencing factors included technology, operator experience, specific protocols, and optimization strategies. The analysis also identified a lack of longitudinal studies assessing changes over time. The use of dose management software emerged as an effective tool for facilitating data collection and DRL establishment.
CONCLUSION: The lack of standardized procedural terminology hindered direct DRL comparisons. Our findings highlight a predominance of European studies and emphasize the need for broader international efforts to improve DRL implementation.

Keywords: Diagnostic reference levels; Radiology, interventional; Radiation protection; Fluoroscopy.