Analysis of image quality in digital chest imaging

Radiation Protection Dosimetry

Volumn 117, Issue 1-3, 2006, Pages 174-177

  De Hauwere, An ^a   Bacher, K ^a   Smeets, P ^b   Verstraete, K ^b   Thierens, H ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SILICON;

ARTICLE; BRIGHTNESS; COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOGRAPHY; CONTRAST; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL IMAGING; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; ELECTRIC POTENTIAL; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; RADIATION DETECTOR; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; VISIBILITY;

CALIBRATION; CONTRAST MEDIA; HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHY, THORACIC; RADIOLOGY; RADIOMETRY; SILICON; X-RAY INTENSIFYING SCREENS;

EID: 33645216311     PISSN: 01448420     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/rpd/nci748     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Rong, X. J., Shaw, C. C., Liu, X., Lemacks, M. R. and Thompson, S. K. 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. 28, 2328-2335 (2001).
2. Aufrichtig, R. Comparison of low contrast detectability between a digital amorphous silicon and a screen-film based imaging system for thoracic radiography. Med. Phys. 26, 1349-1358 (1999).
3. Fink, C., Hallscheidt, P., Noeldge, G., Kampschulte, A., Radeleff, B., Hosch, W. P., Kauffmann, G. W. and Hansmann, J. Clinical comparative study with a large-area amorphous silicon flat-panel detector: Image quality and visibility of anatomic structures on chest radiography. Am. J. Roenterol. 178, 481-486 (2002).
4. Strotzer, M., Gmeinwieser, J., Völk, M., Fründ, R., Seitz, J. and Feuerbach, S. Detection of simulated chest lesions with normal and reduced radiation dose, comparison of conventional screen-film radiography and a flat-panel X ray detector based on amorphous silicon. Invest. Radiol. 33, 98-103 (1998).
5. Bacher, K., Smeets, P., Bonnarens, K., De Hauwere, A., Verstraete, K. and Thierens, H. Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography. Am. J. Roenterol. 181, 923-929 (2003).
6. Herrmann, K. A., Stäbler, A., Bonél, H., Kulinna, C., Holzknecht, N., Geiger, B., Böhm, S., Maschke, M. and Reiser, M. F. Initial experiences in clinical application of the THORAX-FD: Flat-panel detector radiography in thoracic diagnosis. Electromedia 68, 25-30 (2000).
7. Guidelines for Acceptance Testing and Quality Control: Kodak Direct View CR 800 System and Kodak Direct View CR 900 System. Kodak Technical and Scientific Bulletin, 1-25.
8. Thijssen, M. A. O., Bijkerk, K. R. and van der Burght, R. J. M. Manual contrast-detail phantom CDRAD type 2.0. Project Quality Assurance in Radiology, Section Clinical Physics, Department of Radiology, University Hospital Nijmegen, St Radboud (1998).
9. Cook, L. T., Insana, M. F., McFadden, M. A., Hall, T. J. and Cox, G. G. Comparison of the low-contrast detectability of a screen-film system and third generation computed radiography. Med. Phys. 21, 691-695 (1994).