A factorial experiment on image quality and radiation dose

Radiation Protection Dosimetry

Volumn 114, Issue 1-3, 2005, Pages 246-252

  Norrman, Eva ^a   Persliden, Jan ^a,b,c  

^a ÖREBRO UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b ÖREBRO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^c LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DOSIMETRY; GEOMETRY; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING SYSTEM; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MONTE CARLO METHOD; RADIATION DOSE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIATION PROTECTION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOMETRY; SCATTERING, RADIATION; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 21244479731     PISSN: 01448420     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/rpd/nch557     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60. Ann. ICRP 21(1-3) (Oxford: Pergamon Press) (1991).
2. Månsson, L. G. Evaluation of radiographic procedures. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Radiation Physics, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden (1994).
3. Geijer, H. and Persliden, J. Varied tube potential with constant effective dose at lumbar spine radiography using a flat-panel detector. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 114(1-3), 240-245 (2005).
4. Tingberg, A. Quantifying the image quality of medical x-ray images. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Radiation Physics, Malmö, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden (2000).
5. McCollough, C. H., Bruesewitz, M. R., Vrtiska, T. J., King, B. F., LeRoy, A. J., Quam, J. P. and Hattery, R. R. Image quality and dose comparison among screen-film, computed, and CT scanned projection radiography: applications to CT urography. Radiology 221, 395-403 (2001).
6. Sandborg, M., McVey, G., Dance, D. R. and Alm Carlsson, G. Schemes for the optimisation of chest radiography using a computer model of patient and x-ray imaging system. Med. Phys. 28, 2007-2019 (2001).
7. Montgomery, D. C. Design and Analysis of Experiments (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.) (2001), ISBN 0-471-31649-0.
8. Wise, K. N., Sandborg, M., Persliden, J. and Alm Carlsson, G. Sensitivity of coefficients for converting entrance surface dose and kerma-area product to effective dose and energy imparted to the patients. Phys. Med. Biol. 44(8), 1937-1954 (1999).
9. Rapp-Bernhardt, U., Roehl, F. W., Gibbs, R. C., Schmidl, H., Krause, U. W. and Bernhardt, T. M. Flat-panel x-ray detector based on amorphous silicon versus asymmetric screen-film system: phantom study of dose reduction and depiction of simulated findings. Radiology 227(2), 484-492 (2003).
10. Hammersberg, P. and Stenström, M. Maximising the signal-to-noise ratio in computerised tomography data using robust design. Insight 38(2), 112-117 (1996).
11. Bergman, B. Industriell försöksplanering och robust konstruktion (in Swedish). (Lund, Sweden, Studentlitteratur) (1992), ISBN 91-44-36861-5.
12. Thijssen, M. A. O., Thijssen, H. O. M., Merx, J. L., Lindeier, J. M. and Bijerk, K. R. A definition of image quality: the image quality figure. In: British Institute of Radiology Report 20: optimisation of image quality and patient exposure in diagnostic radiology (London: British Institute of Radiology) (1998).
13. Geijer, H., Andersson, T., Beckman, K.-W. and Persliden, J. Image quality vs radiation dose for a flat-panel amorphous silicon detector: a phantom study. Eur. Radiol. 11(9) 1704-1709 (2001).
14. Norrman, E. Automatic evaluation of image quality of diagnostic digital radiographic systems. M.Sc. thesis, Department of Medical Radiation Physics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden (2003), ISSN 1401-7466.
15. Tapiovaara, M., Lakkisto, M. and Servomaa A. PCXMC - a PC-based Monte Carlo program for calculating patient doses in medical X-ray examinations. Version 1.3. STUK-A139, Finnish Centre for Radiation and Nuclear Safety, Helsinki, Finland (1997).
16. Huda, W. Effective doses to adults and pediatric patients. Pediatr. Radiol. 32(4), 272-279 (2002).
17. Huda, W., Ogden, K. M., Scalzetti, E. M., Roskoff, M. L. and Dance, D. R. The importance of size and random noise on lesion detection in digital mammography. Syracuse, New York, London (2003).
18. Geijer, H. Department of Radiology, Örebro University Hospital, personal communication.
19. Jansson, M. Department of Radiology, Örebro University Hospital, personal communication.