Comparison of four digital and one conventional radiographic image systems for the chest in a patient study with subsequent system optimization;Vergleich von vier digitalen und einem konventionellen rö ntgenaufnahmesystem für den thorax mittels einer patientenstudie mit nachfolgender systemoptimierung

RoFo Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Rontgenstrahlen und der Bildgebenden Verfahren

Volumn 177, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 272-278

  Redlich, U ^a   Hoeschen, C ^a   Effenberger, O ^a   Fessel, A ^a   Preuss H ^a   Reissberg S ^a   Scherlach, C ^a   Dohring W ^a  

^a OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Images, analysis; Radiography, digital; Radiography, flat panel; Radiography, storage phosphor; Thorax, radiography

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; EVALUATION; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING SYSTEM; LUNG STRUCTURE; PHANTOM; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; SCORING SYSTEM; SYSTEM ANALYSIS; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY; VALIDATION PROCESS;

HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHY, THORACIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 13944284459     PISSN: 14389029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-813897     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Redlich U, Reissberg S, Hoeschen C et al. Thoraxübersichtsaufnahme: ROC-Phantomstudie an vier verschiedenen digitalen und einem konventionellen Röntgenaufnahmesystem. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2003; 175: 38-45
2. Månsson LG. Methods for the evaluation of Image Quality: A review. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2000; 90: 89-99
3. Sund P, Herrmann C, Tingberg A et al. Comparison of two methods for evaluating image quality of chest radiographs. SPIE 2000; 3977: 437-443
4. European Commission. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images, EUR 16 260 EN. Brussels: CEC, 1996
5. Tingberg A. Quantifying the quality of medical x-ray images. Malmö: Dissertation, 2000: 21
6. Hoeschen C, Försterling T, Döhring W. Vergleichende Messungen zur physikalischen Bildqualität fünf verschiedener Röntgenbilddetektoren mittels eines modular aufgebauten Phantoms. In: Welker K (Hrsg). Medizinische Physik, Tagungsband 2001: 71-72
7. Sandborg M, Tingberg A, Dance DR et al. Demonstration of correlations between clinical and physical image quality measures in chest and lumbar spine screen-film radiography. Br J Radiol 2001; 74: 520-528
8. Saunders RS Jr, Samei E, Hoeschen C. Impact of resolution and noise characteristics of digital radiographic detectors on the detectability of lung nodules. Med Phys 2004; 31 (6): 1603-1613
9. Volk M, Hamer OW, Feuerbach S et al. Dose reduction in skeletal and chest radiography using a large-area flat-panel detector based on amorphous silicon and thallium-doped cesium iodide: technical background, basic image quality parameters, and review of the literature. Eur Radiol 2004; 14 (5): 827-834
10. Busch HP, Busch S, Decker C et al. Bildqualität und Dosis in der Digitalen Projektionsradiographie. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2003; 175: 32-37
11. Kamm KF. Grundlagen der Röntgenabbildung. In: Ewen K (Hrsg). Moderne Bildgebung. Stuttgart: Thieme, 1998: 57-60
12. Tingberg A, Herrmann C, Lanhede B et al. Influence of the characteristic curve on the clinical image quality of lumbar spine and chest radiographs. Br J Radiol 2004; 77 (915): 204-215