Depiction of low-contrast detail in digital radiography: Comparison of powder- and needle-structured storage phosphor systems

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 41, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 593-599

  Körner, Markus ^a,c   Treitl, Marcus ^a   Schaetzing, Ralph ^b   Pfeifer, Klaus Jürgen ^a   Reiser, Maximilian ^a   Wirth, Stefan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^b Agfa Deutschland   (Germany)

^c LUDWIG MAXIMILIANS UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Digital radiography; Low contrast; Needle image plate; Storage phosphor

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; IMAGING SYSTEM; PARAMETER; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; STUDENT T TEST;

EID: 33747825638     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.rli.0000223765.73182.55     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Frankenberger J, Mair S, Herrmann C, et al. Reflective and transmissive CR. ScanHead technology on needle image plates. Proc SPIE. 2005;5745:499-510.
2. Leblans P, Struye L, Willems P. A new needle-crystalline computed radiography detector. J Digit Imaging. 2000;13:117-120.
3. Schillinger B, Baumann J, Gebele H, et al. A new fast and large area neutron detector using a novel image plate readout technique. Appl Radiat Isot. 2004;61:451-454.
4. Schaetzing R, Fasbender R, Kersten P. New high-speed scanning technique for computed radiography. Proc SPIE. 2002;4682:511-520.
5. Burgess AE. Comparison of receiver operating characteristic and forced choice observer performance measurement methods. Med Phys. 1995;22:643-655.
6. Vuylsteke P, Schoeters E. Multiscale image contrast amplification (MUSICA). Proc SPIE. 1994;2167:551-560.
7. Prokop M, Schaefer-Prokop CM. Digital image processing. Eur Radiol. 1997;7:73-82.
8. Illers H, Buhr E, Bergmann D, et al. Measurement of the detective quantum efficiency (DQE) of digital X-ray imaging devices according to the standard IEC 62220&cjs0025;1. Proc SPIE. 2004;177-187.
9. Veldkamp WJ, Kroft LJ, Boot MV, et al. Contrast-detail evaluation and dose assessment of eight digital chest radiography systems in clinical practice. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:333-341.
10. Uffmann M, Prokop M, Eisenhuber E, et al. Computed radiography and direct radiography: influence of acquisition dose on the detection of simulated lung lesions. Invest Radiol. 2005;40:249-256.
11. Rapp-Bernhardt U, Bernhardt TM, Lenzen H, et al. Experimental evaluation of a portable indirect flat-panel detector for the pediatric chest: comparison with storage phosphor radiography at different exposures by using a chest phantom. Radiology. 2005;237:485-491.
12. Ramli K, Abdullah BJ, Ng KH, et al. Computed and conventional chest radiography: a comparison of image quality and radiation dose. Austr Radiol. 2005;49:460-466.
13. Pascoal A, Lawinski CP, Mackenzie A, et al. Chest radiography: a comparison of image quality and effective dose using four digital systems. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;114:273-277.
14. Ono K, Yoshitake T, Akahane K, et al. Comparison of a digital flat-panel versus screen-film, photofluorography and storage-phosphor systems by detection of simulated lung adenocarcinoma lesions using hard copy images. Br J Radiol. 2005;78:922-927.
15. Neitzel U. Status and prospects of digital detector technology for CR and DR. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;114:32-38.
16. Kroft LJ, Veldkamp WJ, Mertens BJ, et al. Comparison of eight different digital chest radiography systems: variation in detection of simulated chest disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185:339-346.
17. Uffmann M, Schaefer-Prokop C, Neitzel U, et al. Skeletal applications for flat-panel versus storage-phosphor radiography: effect of exposure on detection of low-contrast details. Radiology. 2004;231:506-514.
18. Bacher K, Smeets P, Bonnarens K, et al. Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181:923-929.
19. Ludwig K, Lenzen H, Kamm KF, et al. Performance of a flat-panel detector in detecting artificial bone lesions: comparison with conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography. Radiology. 2002;222:453-459.
20. Herrmann A, Bonel H, Stabler A, et al. Chest imaging with flat-panel detector at low and standard doses: comparison with storage phosphor technology in normal patients. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:385-390.
21. Trianni A, Bernardi G, Padovani R. Are new technologies always reducing patient doses in cardiac procedures? Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2006;117:97-101.
22. Neofotistou V, Tsapaki V, Kottou S, et al. Does digital imaging decrease patient dose? A pilot study and review of the literature. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2006;117:204 -210.
23. Volk M, Hamer OW, Feuerbach S, et al. Dose reduction in skeletal and chest radiography using a large-area flat-panel detector based on amorphous silicon and thallium-doped cesium iodide: technical background, basic image quality parameters, and review of the literature. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:827-834.
24. Korner M, Wirth S, Treitl M, et al. Initial clinical results with a new needle screen storage phosphor system in chest radiograms. Rofo. 2005;177:1491-1496.
25. Samei E, Flynn MJ. An experimental comparison of detector performance for computed radiography systems. Med Phys. 2002;29:447-459.
26. Gruber M, Uffmann M, Weber M, et al. Direct detector radiography versus dual reading computed radiography: feasibility of dose reduction in chest radiography. Eur Radiol. 2006;1-7.
27. Illers H, Buhr E, Hoeschen C. Measurement of the detective quantum efficiency (DQE) of digital X-ray detectors according to the novel standard IEC 62220-1. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;114:39-44.