Comparison of indirect CsI/A:Si and direct a:SE digital radiography - An assessment of contrast and detail visualization

Acta Radiologica

Volumn 44, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 616-621

  Fischbach, Frank ^a   Freund, T ^a   Pech, M ^a   Werk, M ^a   Bassir, C ^a   Stoever, B ^a   Felix, R ^a   Ricke, J ^a  

^a CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Amorphous selenium; Amorphous silicon; Chest radiography; Digital radiography

Indexed keywords

AMORPHOUS SILICON; CORRELATION METHODS; DOSIMETRY; ELECTRIC CHARGE; IMAGE QUALITY; PHOTODIODES; STATISTICAL METHODS; TUMORS; X RAYS;

CHEST RADIOGRAPHY; CONTRAST DETECTABILITY; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; DOSE REDUCTION;

RADIOGRAPHY;

EID: 0344826778     PISSN: 02841851     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02841850312331287769     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. 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.
2. Berkson J, Goud CA, Carr DT, Bruwer AJ. Identification of positives in roentgenographic readings. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 1960; 81: 660.
3. Burger GC. Phantom tests with x-rays. Philips technical review 11. 1950: 291-8.
4. Busch HP. Digital projection radiography. Technical bases. Imaging quality and usefulness. Radiologe 1999; 39: 710.
5. Chotas HG, Dobbins JT III, Ravin CE. Principles of digital radiography with large-area, electronically readable detectors: a review of the basics. Radiology 1999; 219: 595.
6. Floyd C JR, Baker JA, Chotas HG, Delong DM, Ravin CE. Selenium-based digital radiography of the chest: radiologists' preference compared with film-screen radiographs. AJR 1995; 165: 1353.
7. Geijer H, Beckmann KW, Torbjörn A, Persliden J. Image quality vs radiation dose for a flat-panel amorphous silicon detector: a phantom study. Eur. Radiol. 2001; 11: 1704.
8. 2 amorphous silicon flat panel x-ray detector for radiographic imaging applications. Med. Phys. 2000; 27: 1324.
9. Gurvich V, Wolf M. Introducing a phantom to determine radiation dose in diagnostic radiology. In: Digitale Bildgebung in der Diagnostischen Radiologie, Bildqualität-Strahlenexposition, p. 287. Edited by T. Schmidt et al. H. Hoffmann Verlag 1996.
10. Herrmann A, Bonel H, Stabler A et al. Chest imaging with flat-panel detector at low and standard doses: Comparison with storage phosphor technology in normal patients. Eur. Radiol. 2002; 12: 385.
11. Kehler M, Lyttkens K, Andersson B et al. Phantom study of chest radiography with storage phosphor, selenium and film-screen systems. Acta Radiol. 1996; 37: 332.
12. Neitzel U, Maack I, Guenther-Kohfahl S. Image quality of a digital chest radiography system based on a selenium detector. Med. Phys. 1994; 21: 509.
13. Schaefer-Prokop CM, Prokop M, Schmidt A, Neitzel U, Galanski M. Selenium radiography versus storage phosphor and conventional radiography in the detection of simulated chest lesions. Radiology 1996; 201: 45.
14. Swets J, Pickett R. Evaluation of Diagnostic Systems. Academic Press 1982.
15. Thijssen MA, Thijssen HO, Merx JL, van Woensel MP. Quality analysis of DSA equipment. Neuroradiology 1988; 30: 561.
16. Woodard PK, Slone RM, Gierada DS, Reiker GG, Pilgram TK, Jost RG. Chest radiography: depiction of normal anatomy and pathologic structures with selenium-based digital radiography versus conventional screen-film radiography. Radiology 1997; 203: 197.
17. Yerushalmy J. Reliability of chest radiography in the diagnosis of pulmonary lesions. Am. J. Surg. 1955; 89: 231.