Original Investigation| Volume 29, ISSUE 12, e279-e288, December 2022

A Clinically Optimal Protocol for the Imaging of Enteric Tubes: On the Basis of Radiologist Interpreted Diagnostic Utility and Radiation Dose Reduction

Published:April 30, 2022DOI:

      Rationale and Objectives

      The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate a patient thickness-based protocol specifically for the confirmation of enteric tube placements in bedside abdominal radiographs. Protocol techniques were set to maintain image quality while minimizing patient dose.

      Materials and Methods

      A total of 226 pre-intervention radiographs were obtained to serve as a baseline cohort for comparison. After the implementation of a thickness-based protocol, a total of 229 radiographs were obtained as part of an intervention cohort. Radiographs were randomized and graded for diagnostic quality by seven expert radiologists based on a standardized conspicuity scale (grades: 0 non-diagnostic to 3+). Basic patient demographics, body mass index, ventilatory status, and enteric tube type were recorded and subgroup analyses were performed. Effective dose was estimated for both cohorts.


      The dedicated thickness-based protocol resulted in a significant reduction in effective dose of 80% (p-value < 0.01). There was no significant difference in diagnostic quality between the two cohorts with 209 (92.5%) diagnostic radiographs in the baseline and 221 (96.5%) diagnostic radiographs in the thickness-based protocol (p-value 0.06).


      A protocol optimized for the confirmation of enteric tube placements was developed. This protocol results in lower patient effective dose, without sacrificing diagnostic accuracy. The technique chart is provided for reference. The protocol development process outlined in this work could be readily generalized to other imaging clinical tasks.

      Key Word

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Academic Radiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Ryan JW
        • Hollywood A
        • Stirling A
        • et al.
        Evidenced-based radiology? A single-institution review of imaging referral appropriateness including monetary and dose estimates for inappropriate scans.
        Ir J Med Sci. 2019; 188: 1385-1389
        • Koopmann MC
        • Kudsk KA
        • Szotkowski MJ
        • et al.
        A team-based protocol and electromagnetic technology eliminate feeding tube placement complications.
        Ann Surg. 2011; 253: 287-302
        • Sparks DA
        • Chase DM
        • Coughlin LM
        • Perry E.
        Pulmonary Complications of 9931 Narrow-Bore Nasoenteric Tubes During Blind Placement.
        Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. 2011; 35: 625-629
        • Kirby DF
        • Delegge MH
        • Fleming CR
        American Gastroenterological Association technical review on tube feeding for enteral nutrition.
        Gastroenterology. 1995; 108: 1282-1301
        • Numata Y
        • Ishii K
        • Seki H
        • et al.
        Perforation of abdominal esophagus following nasogastric feeding tube intubation: a case report.
        Int J Surg Case Rep. 2018; 45: 67-71
        • Szczykutowicz TP
        • Bour R
        • Ranallo F
        • et al.
        The current state of CT dose management across radiology: well intentioned but not universally well executed.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018; 211: 405-408
        • Metheny NA
        • Krieger MM
        • Healey F
        • et al.
        A review of guidelines to distinguish between gastric and pulmonary placement of nasogastric tubes.
        Heart Lung. 2019; 48: 226-235
        • Milsom SA
        • Sweeting JA
        • Sheahan H
        • et al.
        Naso-enteric tube placement: a review of methods to confirm tip location, global applicability and requirements.
        World J Surg. 2015; 39: 2243-2252
        • Shah C
        • Jones AK
        • Willis CE
        Consequences of modern anthropometric dimensions for radiographic techniques and patient radiation exposures.
        Med Phys. 2008; 35: 3616-3625
        • Shepard SJ
        • Wang J
        • Flynn M
        • et al.
        An exposure indicator for digital radiography: AAPM Task Group 116 (Executive Summary).
        Med Phys. 2009; 36: 2898-2914
        • Seibert JA
        • Morin RL
        The standardized exposure index for digital radiography: an opportunity for optimization of radiation dose to the pediatric population.
        Pediatr Radiol. 2011; 41: 573-581
        • Gibson DJ
        • Davidson RA
        exposure creep in computed radiography: a longitudinal study.
        Academic Radiology. 2012; 19: 458-462
        • Takagi S
        • Yaegashi T
        • Ishikawa M
        Dose reduction and image quality improvement of chest radiography by using bone-suppression technique and low tube voltage: a phantom study.
        Eur Radiol. 2020; 30: 571-580
        • Jeon MR
        • Park HJ
        • Lee SY
        • et al.
        Radiation dose reduction in plain radiography of the full-length lower extremity and full spine.
        Br J Radiol. 2017; 9020170483
        • Ramanaidu S
        • Sta Maria R
        • Ng K
        • et al.
        Evaluation of radiation dose and image quality following changes to tube potential (kVp) in conventional paediatric chest radiography.
        Biomed Imaging Interv J. 2006; 2: e35
        • Sánchez AA
        • Reiser I
        • Baxter T
        • et al.
        Portable abdomen radiography: moving to thickness-based protocols.
        Pediatr Radiol. 2018; 48: 210-215
        • McCollough CH
        • Schueler BA
        Calculation of effective dose.
        Med Phys. 2000; 27: 828-837
      1. Rosenstein M Handbook of selected tissue doses for projections common in diagnostic radiology. Food and Drug Administration; 1988.

        • Valentin J
        The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection.
        Elsevier, 2007