Computed radiography and direct radiography: Influence of acquisition dose on the detection of simulated lung lesions

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 40, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 249-256

  Uffmann, Martin ^a   Prokop, Mathias ^b   Eisenhuber, Edith ^a   Fuchsjäger, Michael ^a   Weber, Michael ^a   Schaefer Prokop, Cornelia ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Chest radiography; Comparative study; Computed radiography; Digital radiography; Experimental study; Exposure settings; ROC analysis

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANTHROPOMETRIC PARAMETERS; ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; EVALUATION; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LUNG DISEASE; NONHUMAN; PHANTOM; PHOSPHOR RADIOGRAPHY SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION ATTENUATION; RADIATION DETECTION; RADIATION DOSE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

EID: 17644379010     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.rli.0000159875.01324.bf     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Schaetzing R. Computed radiography technology. In: Samei E, Durham NC, eds. Advances in Digital Radiography: RSNA Categorical Course in Diagnostic Radiology Physics. Oak Brook: Radiological Society of North America, Inc; 2003:7-22.
2. Neitzel U, Boehm A, Maack I. Comparison of low-contrast detail detectability with five different conventional and digital radiographic imaging systems. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2000;3981:216-223.
3. Rong X, Shaw C, Liu X, et al. Comparison of an amorphous silicon/ cesium iodide flat-panel digital chest radiography system with screen/ film and computed radiography systems-a contrast-detail phantom study. Med Phys. 2001;28:2328-2335.
4. Floyd C, Warp R, Dobbins J, et al. Imaging characteristics of an amorphous silicon flat-panel detector for digital chest radiography. Radiology. 2001;218:683-688.
5. Strotzer M, Volk M, Frund R, et al. Routine chest radiography using a flat-panel detector: image quality at standard detector dose and 33% dose reduction. Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178:169-171.
6. Geijer H, Beckman KW, Andersson T, et al. Image quality vs. radiation dose for a flat-panel amorphous silicon detector: a phantom study. Eur Radiol. 2001;11:1704-1709.
7. Prokop M, Schaefer C, Oestmann J, et al. Improved parameters for unsharp mask filtering of digital chest radiographs. Radiology. 1993; 187:521-526.
8. Sailer J, Prokop M, Neitzel U, et al. Comparison of an automatic versus a semiautomatic mode for gray-scale adaptation for digital chest radiography. Invest Radiol. 2004;39:325-333.
9. Shaw C, Wang T, Breitenstein D, et al. Improvement of signal-to-noise and contrast-to-noise ratios in dual-screen computed radiography. Med Phys. 1997;24:1293-1302.
10. Hamer OW, Volk M, Zorger Z, 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.
11. Peer S, Neitzel U, Giacomuzzi SM, et al. Comparison of low-contrast detail perception on storage phosphor radiographs and digital flat panel detector images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2001;20:239-242.
12. Strotzer M, Volk M, Reiser M, et al. Chest radiography with a large-area detector based on cesium-iodide/amorphous-silicon technology: image quality and dose requirement in comparison with an asymmetric screen-film system. J Thorac Imaging. 2000;15:157-161.
13. Garmer M, Hennigs S, Jager H, et al. Digital radiography versus conventional radiography in chest imaging: diagnostic performance of a large-area silicon flat-panel detector in a clinical CT-controlled study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:75-80.
14. Hennigs S, Garmer M, Jaeger H, et al. Digital chest radiography with a large-area flat-panel silicon X-ray detector: clinical comparison with conventional radiography. Eur Radiol. 2001;11:1688-1696.
15. Redlich U, Reissberg S, Hoeschen C, et al. Chest radiography: ROC phantom study of four different digital systems and one conventional radiographic system [in German]. Rofo. 2003;175:38-45.
16. Eisenhuber E, Stadler A, Prokop M, et al. Detection of monitoring materials on bedside chest radiographs with the most recent generation of storage phosphor plates: dose increase does not improve detection performance. Radiology. 2003;227:216-221.
17. Fetterly KA, Schueler BA. Performance evaluation of a "dual-side read" dedicated mammography computed radiography system. Med Phys. 2003;30:1843-1854.
18. Flynn MJ, Samei E. Experimental comparison of noise and resolution for 2k and 4k storage phosphor radiography systems. Med Phys. 1999; 26:1612-1623.
19. Strasser GR, Schaefer-Prokop CM, Boehm P, et al. Impact of increased matrix size on the performance of storage phosphor chest radiographs. Radiology. 2001;221:354.
20. Miro SP, Leung AN, Rubin GD, et al. Digital storage phosphor chest radiography: an ROC study of the effect of 2K versus 4K matrix size on observer performance. Radiology. 2001;218:527-532.