Diagnostic Performance of a Flat-Panel Detector at Low Tube Voltage in Chest Radiography: A Phantom Study

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 39, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 97-103

  Bernhardt, Thomas M ^a   Rapp Bernhardt, Ulrike ^a   Lenzen, Horst ^a   Röhl, Friedrich W ^b   Diederich, Stefan ^a   Papke, Karsten ^c   Ludwig, Karl ^a   Heindel, Walter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

^b OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c Klinikum Duisburg   (Germany)

Author keywords

Digital radiography; Experimental investigations; Flat panel detector; Image quality

Indexed keywords

CESIUM; CESIUM IODIDE; SILICON DIOXIDE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ARTICLE; CATHETER; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERSTITIAL LUNG DISEASE; LUNG NODULE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY; TUBE;

EID: 0942298141     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.rli.0000110566.23154.81     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Strotzer M, Gmeinwieser J, Völk M, et al. 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 amorphous silicon. Invest Radiol. 1998;33:98-103.
2. Bernhardt TM, Otto D, Reichel G, et al. Detection of simulated interstitial lung disease and catheters with selenium, storage phosphor, and film-based radiography. Radiology. 1999;213:445-454.
3. Launders JH, Cowen AR, Bury RF, et al. Towards image quality, beam energy and effective dose optimisation in digital thoracic radiography. Eur Radiol. 2001;11:870-875.
4. Hamer OW, Völk M, Zorger N, et al. Amorphous silicon, flat-panel, x-ray detector versus storage phosphor-based computed radiography: contrast-detail phantom study at different tube voltages and detector entrance doses. Invest Radiol. 2003;38:212-220.
5. E, in diagnostic radiology. Med Phys. 1990;17:998-1003.
6. Antonuk LE, Boudry J, Huang W, et al. Demonstration of megavoltage and diagnostic x-ray imaging with hydrogenated amorphous silicon arrays. Med Phys. 1992;19:1455-1467.
7. Chotas HG, Dobbins JT, Ravin CE. Principles of digital radiography with large-area, electronically readable detectors: a review of the basics. Radiology. 1999;210:595-599.
8. Dobbins JT, Samei E, Chotas HG, et al. Chest radiography: optimization of x-ray spectrum for cesium iodide-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector. Radiology. 2003;226:221-230.
9. Neitzel U, Böhm A, Maack I. Comparison of low-contrast detail detectability with five different conventional and digital radiographic imaging systems. Medical Imaging 2000; Proc SPIE 3981 (2000).
10. Neitzel U, Böhm A, Maack I. Comparison of low-contrast detail detectability with five different conventional and digital radiographic imaging systems. Medical Imaging 2000; Proc SPIE 3981 (2000).
11. Launders JH, Kengyelics SM, Cowen AR. A comprehensive physical image quality evaluation of a selenium based digital x-ray imaging system for thorax radiology. Med Phys. 1998;25:986-997.
12. Dressler G, Panzer W, Stieve FE, et al., eds. Organ Doses in X-ray Diagnosis. Berlin: H. Hoffmann GmbH; 1993.
13. Bernhardt TM, Rapp-Bernhardt U, Hausmann T, et al. Digital selenium radiography: antiscatter grid for chest radiography in a clinical study. Br J Radiol. 2000;73:963-968.