A review of image quality and dose issues in digital fluorography and digital subtraction angiography

Radiation Protection Dosimetry

Volumn 94, Issue 1-2, 2001, Pages 73-76

  Kotre, C J ^a   Marshall, N W ^a  

^a NEWCASTLE GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; DIGITAL SUBTRACTION ANGIOGRAPHY; DOSIMETRY; FLUOROGRAPHY; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE QUALITY; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; REFERENCE VALUE; REVIEW; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; STANDARD;

EID: 0035025825     PISSN: 01448420     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a006483     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. AAPM. Task Group Report on DSA Performance Evaluation Methods and Phantom Designs. American Association of Physicists in Medicine 1984 Summer School, University of Notre Dame (1984).
2. DHSS. A Procedure for Evaluating the Physical Imaging Performance of a Digital Subtraction Fluorography System. Report STB6E/85/4 (London: Department of Health) (1985).
3. IEC 1223-3-3. Evaluation and Routine Testing in Medical Imaging Departments - Part 3-3: Acceptance Tests - Equipment for Digital Subtraction Angiography (International Electrotechnical Commission) (1996).
4. IPEM. Recommended standards for the routine performance testing of diagnostic X-ray imaging systems. Report No 77 (York: Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine) (1997).
5. MDA. Evaluation of the Philips DCI-SX Digital Cardiac System. Evaluation Report MDA/94/65 (London: Department of Health) (1994).
6. MDA. An Evaluation of a Toshiba Digital Fluoroscopy/Radiography System. Evaluation Report MDA/95/24 (London: Department of Health) (1995).
7. MDA. A Field Evaluation of a Philips Medical Systems Integris V3000 Digital Interventional System in Clinical Service. Evaluation Report MDA/95/35. (London: Department of Health) (1995).
8. MDA. A Technical Evaluation on the IGE Medical Systems Stenoscop 2 Series 9000 Mobile C-arm Digital Imaging System. Evaluation Report MDA/96/72 (London: Department of Health) (1996).
9. Chesters, M. S. and Hay, G. A. Quantitative Relation between Detectability and Noise Power. Phys. Med. Biol. 28, 1113-1125 (1983).
10. Blackwell, H. R. Contrast Thresholds of the Human Eye. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 36, 624-643 (1946).
11. Schnitzler, A. D. Image-detector Model and Parameters of the Human Visual System. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 63, 1357-1368 (1973).
12. Hay, G. A. and Chesters, M. S. A Model of Visual Threshold Detection. J. Theor. Biol. 67, 221-240 (1977).
13. Marshall, N. W., Faulkner, K., Busch, H. P. and Lehmann, K. J. The Contrast-detail Behaviour of a Photostimulable Phosphor based Computed Radiography System. Phys. Med. Biol. 39, 2289-2303 (1994).
14. Kume, Y., Doi, K., Ohara, K. and Giger, M. L. Investigation of Basic Imaging Properties in Digital Radiography. 10. Structure Mottle of II-TV Digital Imaging Systems. Med. Phys. 13, 843-849 (1986).
15. Kotre, C. J. The Effect of Background Structure on the Detection of Low Contrast Objects in Mammography. Br. J.Radiol. 71, 1162-1167 (1998).
16. Ohara, K., Doi, K., Metz, C. E. and Giger, M. L. Investigation of Basic Imaging Properties in Digital Radiography. 13. Effect of Simple Structured Noise on the Detectability of Simulated Stenotic Lesions. Med. Phys. 16, 14-21 (1989).