Use of a quality index in threshold contrast detail detection measurements in television fluoroscopy

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 76, Issue 907, 2003, Pages 464-472

  Gallacher, D J ^a   MacKenzie, A ^b   Batchelor, S ^a   Lynch, J ^c   Saunders, J E ^a  

^a GUY'S AND ST THOMAS' NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^b KING S COLLEGE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c Princess Margaret Hospital   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; FLUOROSCOPY; IMAGE INTENSIFIER; IMAGE QUALITY; PERFORMANCE; PLOTS AND CURVES; PULSE FLUOROSCOPY; QUALITY CONTROL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RADIATION BEAM; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EQUIPMENT; RADIATION FIELD; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TELEVISION;

FLUOROSCOPY; HUMANS; LONDON; MODELS, THEORETICAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; TECHNOLOGY, RADIOLOGIC; TELEVISION; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 0041368714     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/82965103     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Hay GA, Clarke OF, Coleman NJ, Cowen AR. A set of X-ray test objects for quality control in television fluoroscopy. Br J Radiol 1985;58:335-4.
2. HPA. 1981, Measurements of the Performance Characteristics of Diagnostic X-ray Systems Used in Medicine, Part II, X-ray Image Intensifier Systems, TGR32, Part 2 (Hospital Physicists Association, London).
3. Chesters MS, Hay GA. Quantitative relation between detectability and noise power. Phys Med Biol 1983;28:1113-25.
4. Workman A, Cowen AR. Signal, noise and SNR transfer properties of computed radiography. Phys Med Biol 1993;38:1789-808.
5. Hay GA, Clarke OF, Coleman NJ, Cowen AR, Craven DM. Instructions for the Use of the Leeds Test Objects (supplied with each set of test objects). 1979.
6. DHSS. The Testing of X-Ray Image Intensifier Systems (Working Group Report STB/7/82), London: Department of Health and Social Security, 1982.
7. Medical Devices Agency. The Testing of X-Ray Image Intensifier Television Systems (Working Group Report), Evaluation Report MDA/95/07. London: Medical Devices Directorate, Department of Health and Social Security, 1995.
8. Medical Devices Agency. The Testing of X-Ray Image Intensifier Television Systems, Evaluation Report MDA/98/68. London: Medical Devices Agency, Department of Health, 1998.
9. Cowen AR, Clarke OF, Coleman NJ, et al. Leeds X-Ray Test Objects Instruction Manual (4th edn), Leeds: FAXIL, The General Infirmary, 1992.
10. IPEM/CoR/NRPB. Recommended Standards for the Routine Performance Testing for Diagnostic X-Ray Imaging Systems, IPEM Report 77. York: Institute of Physics and Engineerng in Medicine, 1997.
11. Launders JH, McArdle S, Workman A, Cowen AR. Update on the recommended viewing protocol for FAXIL threshold contract detail detectability test objects used in television fluoroscopy. Br J Radiol 1995;68:70-7.
12. McRobbie DW, Hancock AP, Castellano IA. A figure of merit for the assessment of image intensifier systems. Br J Radiol 1992;65:878-84.
13. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU). Report 54, Medical Imaging - The Assessment of Image Quality, Bethesda, Maryland, USA ICRU, 1995.
14. Kotre CJ, Marshall NW, Faulkner K. An alternative approach to contrast-detail testing of X-ray image intensifier systems. Br J Radiol 1992;65:686-90.
15. Marshall NW, Kotre CJ, Robson KJ, Lecomber AR. Receptor dose in digital fluorography: A comparison between theory and practice. Phys Med Biol 2001;46:1283-96.
16. Dowsett DJ, Kenny PA, Johnston RE. The Physics of Diagnostic Imaging. London: Chapman & Hall Medical, 1998;228-53.
17. Reilly AJ, Sutton DG. A computer model of an image intensifier system working under automatic brightness control. Br J Radiol 2001;74:938-48.
18. Hubbell JH, Seltzer SM. Tables of X-ray mass attenuation coefficients and mass-energy absorption coefficients 1 keV to 20 MeV for elements Z = 1 to 92 and 98 additional substances of dosimetric interest. NISTIR 5632. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1995.
19. Sutton DG, Reilly AJ. Report 78 Spectrum Processor. York: IPEM, 1997.
20. Cranley K, Gilmore BJ, Fogarty GWA, Desponds L, Sutton DG. Catalogue of Diagnostic X-Ray Spectra & Other Data, IPEM Report 78 (CD-ROM). York: IPEM, 1997.
21. Boone JM, Pfeiffer DE, Strauss KJ, Rossi RP, Lin PP, Shephard JS, et al. A survey of fluoroscopic exposure rates: AAPM task group No. 11 Report. Med Phys 1993;20:789-94.
22. Nicholson RA, Thornton A, Akpan M. Radiation dose reduction in paediatric fluoroscopy using added filtration. Br J Radiol 1995;68:296-300.
23. Aufrichtig R, Xue P, Thomas CW, Gilmore GC, Wilson DL. Perceptual comparison of pulsed and continuous fluoroscopy. Med Phys 1994;21:245-56.
24. Swets JA, Pickett RM. Evaluation of Diagnostic Systems: Methods from Signal Detection Theory. New York: Academic Press 1982;80-93.
25. Marshall NW, Faulkner K, Kotre CJ, Robson K. Analysis of variations in contrast-detail measurements performed on image intensifier systems. Phys Med Biol 1992;37:2297-302.