Inter-observer variation in masked and unmasked images for quality evaluation of clinical radiographs

Radiation Protection Dosimetry

Volumn 114, Issue 1-3, 2005, Pages 62-68

  Tingberg, Anders ^a   Eriksson, Fredrik ^a   Medin, Joakim ^a   Besjakov, Jack ^b   Bårth, Magnus ^c   Håkansson, Markus ^b   Sandborg, Michael ^c   Almén, Anja ^a   Lanhede, Birgitta ^b   Alm Carlsson, Gudrun ^c   Mattsson, Sören ^a   Månsson, Lars Gunnar ^b  

^a LUND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b SAHLGRENSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^c LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIOLOGIST; SIMULATION; SPINE RADIOGRAPHY; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY;

COMPUTERS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EVALUATION STUDIES; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RADIOGRAPHY; RADIOGRAPHY, THORACIC; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 21244442316     PISSN: 01448420     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/rpd/nch527     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. European Commission. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. EUR 16260 (Geneva: EC) (1996).
2. Almén, A., Tingberg, A., Mattsson, S., Besjakov, J., Kheddache, S., Lanhede, B., Månsson, L. G. and Zankl, M. The influence of different technique factors on image quality of lumbar spine radiographs as evaluated by established CEC image criteria. Br. J. Radiol. 73(875), 1192-1199 (2000).
3. Tingberg, A. Quantifying the quality of medical x-ray images. An evaluation based on normal anatomy for lumbar spine and chest radiography. Thesis, Lund University, Malmö (2000).
4. Lanhede, B. and 13 others. The influence of different technique factors on image quality of chest radiographs as evaluated by modified CEC image quality criteria. Br. J. Radiol. 75(889), 38-49 (2002).
5. Sund, P., Herrmann, C., Tingberg, A., Kheddache, S., Månsson, L. G., Almén, A. and Mattsson, S. Comparison of two methods for evaluating image quality of chest radiographs. Proc. SPIE 3981, 251-257 (2000).
6. Tingberg, A. and 14 others. The influence of the characteristic curve on the image quality of clinical radiographs. Br. J. Radiol. 77(915), 204-215 (2004).
7. Robinson, P. J. A. Radiology's Achilles' heel: error and variation in the interpretation of the Rönten image. Br. J. Radiol. 70, 1085-1098 (1997).
8. Samei, E., Eyler, W. and Baron, L. Effects of anatomical structure on signal detection. In: Handbook of Medical Imaging. Beutel, J., Kundel, H. L. and Van Metter, R. L., Eds. (Bellingham, MA: SPIE Press) pp. 655-682 (2000).
9. Grahn, A. and 13 others. Evaluation of a new set of image quality criteria for mammography. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 114(1-3), 389-394 (2005).
10. Hemdal, B. and 11 others. Can the average glandular dose in routine digital mammography screening be reduced? A pilot study using revised image quality criteria. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 114(1-3), 383-388 (2005).
11. Kundel, H. L. Visual search in medical images. In: Handbook of Medical Imaging. Beutel, J., Kundel, H. L. and Van Metter, R. L., Eds. (Bellingham, MA: SPIE Press) pp. 837-858 (2000).
12. Nodine, C. F. and Mello-Thoms, C. The nature of expertise in radiology. In: Handbook of Medical Imaging. Beutel, J., Kundel, H. L. and Van Metter, R. L., Eds. (Bellingham, MA: SPIE Press) pp. 859-894 (2000).
13. Wucherer, M. Viewing devices. In: Quality Assurance and Patient Radiation Protection in Diagnostic Radiology. Gfirtner, H., Moores, B. M., Schmidt, T. and Schibilla, H., Eds. (Berlin-Schlachtensee, Germany: H. Hoffmann GmbH) (1996).