Reduction of absorbed dose in storage phosphor urography by significant lowering of tube voltage and adjustment of image display parameters

Acta Radiologica

Volumn 46, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 391-395

  Wiltz, H J ^a   Petersen, U ^a   Axelsson, B ^a  

^a CENTRAL HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Digital; Experimental; Image quality; Radiation exposure; Technology; Urography

Indexed keywords

ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; IMAGE QUALITY; MEDICAL IMAGING; SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO; TECHNOLOGY; UROLOGY; X RAYS;

DIGITAL; EXPERIMENTAL; RADIATION EXPOSURE; UROGRAPHY;

PHOSPHORS;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; BODY SIZE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTATION; KIDNEY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION PROTECTION; RADIOGRAPHY; RADIOMETRY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; UROGRAPHY; X RAY FILM;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BODY SIZE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; KIDNEY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIATION PROTECTION; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; UROGRAPHY; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 26044432905     PISSN: 02841851     EISSN: 16000455     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02841850510021184     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Alm-Carlsson G, Carlsson CA, Persliden J. Energy imparted to the patient in diagnostic radiology. Calculation of conversion factors for determining the energy imparted from measurements of the air collision kerma integrated over beam area. Phys Med Biol 1984;29:1329-41.
2. Almén A, Tingberg A, Mattsson S, Besjakov J, Kheddache S, Lanhede B, et al. The influence of different technique factors on image quality of lumbar spine radiographs as evaluated by established CEC image criteria. Br J Radiol 2000;73:1192-9.
3. Axelsson B, Petersen U, Wiltz HJ. Digital skeletal radiography: reduction of absorbed dose by adaptation of exposure factors and image processing. Acta Radiol 2001;42:592-8.
4. Chotas HG, Floyd CE, Dobbins JT III, Ravin CE. Digital chest radiography with photostimulable storage phosphors. Signal to noise ratio as a function of kilovoltage with matched exposure risk. Radiology 1993;186:395-8.
5. Commission of the European Communities: European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. EUR 16260 EN, CEC Brussels.
6. Huda W, Slone RM, Belden CJ, Williams JL, Cumming WA, Palmer CK. Mottle on computed radiographs of the chest in pediatric patients. Radiology 1996;199:249-52.
7. Jónsson Á, Herrlin K, Jonsson K, Lundin B, Sanfridsson J, Pettersson H. Radiation dose reduction in computed skeletal radiography. Effect on image quality. Acta Radiol 1996;37:128-33.
8. Lindskoug BA. The reference man in diagnostic radiology dosimetry. Br J Radiol 1992;65:431-7.
9. Marshall NW. Optimisation of dose per image in digital imaging. Rad Prot Dosim 2001;94:83-7.
10. Sandborg M, Tingberg A, Dance DR, Lanhede B, Almén A, McVey G, et al. Demonstration of correlations between clinical and physical image quality measures in chest and lumbar spine screen-film radiography. Br J Radiol 2001;74:520-8.
11. Seifert H, Kubale R, Hagen T, Kramann B, Leetz H-K. A study of dose reduction using digital luminescence radiography for lateral skull radiography. Br J Radiol 1996;69:311-17.
12. Tapiovaara MJ, Sandborg M, Dance DR. A search for improved technique factors in pédiatric fluoroscopy. Phys Med Biol 1999;44:537-59.
13. Yaffe MJ, Rowlands JA. X-ray detectors for digital radiography. Phys Med Biol 1997;42:1-39.