Radiation dose reduction in chest radiography using a flat-panel amorphous silicon detector

Clinical Radiology

Volumn 57, Issue 10, 2002, Pages 902-907

  Hosch, W P ^a,b,c   Fink, C ^a,b   Radeleff, B ^a,b   Kampschulte, A ^a,b   Kauffmann, G W ^a,b   Hansmann, J ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^b GERMAN CANCER RESEARCH CENTER DKFZ   (Germany)

^c Im Neuenheimer Feld 280   (Germany)

Author keywords

Flat panel detector; Measurement images; Quality thorax; Radiations

Indexed keywords

SILICON DIOXIDE;

ANATOMY; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; GENERATOR; IMAGE QUALITY; IONIZATION CHAMBER; LASER; LUNG PARENCHYMA; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DETECTOR; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; SIMULATION; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY; VISIBILITY; X RAY FILM; X RAY TUBE;

EID: 0036796417     PISSN: 00099260     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/crad.2002.0995     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Heesewijk HPM, van der Graaf Y, de Valois J, Feldberg MAM. Effects of dose reduction on digital chest imaging using a selenium detector. Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:403-408.
2. Aufrichtig R. Comparison of low contrast detectability between a digital amorphous silicon and a screen-film based imaging system for thoracic radiography. Med Phys 1999;26:1349-1358.
3. 2 amorphous silicon flat panel x-ray detector for radiographic imaging applications. Med Phys 2000;27:1324-1331.
4. Chotas HG, Ravin CE. Digital chest radiography with a solid-state flat-panel x-ray detector: contrast-detail evaluation with processed images printed on film hard copy. Radiology 2001;218:679-682.
5. Floyd CE, Warp RJ, Dobbins JT, et al. Imaging characteristics of an amorphous silicon flat-panel detector for digital chest radiography. Radiology 2001;218:683-688.
6. Spahn M, Strotzer M, Volk M, et al. Digital radiography with a large-area, amorphous-silicon, flat-panel x-ray detector system. Invest Radiol 2000;35:260-266.
7. Volk M, Strotzer M, Holzknecht N, et al. Amorphous silicon technology: image quality and potential for dose reduction in comparison with screen-film radiography. Clin Radiol 2000;55: 615-621.
8. Strotzer M, Volk M, Wild T, von Landenberg P, Feuerbach S. Simulated bone erosions in a hand phantom: detection with conventional screen-film technology versus cesium iodide-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector. Radiology 2000;215:512.
9. Fink C, Hallscheidt PJ, Nöldge G, et al. Clinical comparative study with a large-area amorphous silicon flat-panel detector: Image quality and visibility of anatomical structures in chest radiography. Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:481-486.
10. Strotzer M, Volk M, Reiser M, et al. Chest radiography with a large-area detector based on cesiumiodide/amorphous-silicon technology: image quality and dose requirement in comparison with an asym-metric screen-film system. J Thorac Imaging 2000;15: 157-161.
11. Strotzer M, Gmeinwieser JK, Volk M, Frund R, Seitz J, Feuerbach S. Detection of simulated chest lesions with normal and reduced radiation dose: comparison of conventional screen-film radiography and a flat-panel X-ray detector based on amor-phoussilicon. Invest Radiol 1998;33:98-103.
12. Dobbins JT, Ergun DL, Rutz L, Blume H, Hinshaw DA, Clark DC. DQE of four generations of computed radiography acquisition devices. Med Phys 1995;22:1581-1593.
13. Busch HP. Digital projection radiography. Technical bases. Imaging quality and usefulness. Radiologe 1999;39:710-724.
14. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-174.