Comparison of radiation doses to patients undergoing standard radiographic examinations with conventional scree-film radiography, computed radiography and direct digital radiography

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 79, Issue 947, 2006, Pages 899-904

  Compagnone, G ^a   Baleni, Casadio M ^a   Pagan, L ^a   Calzolaio, F L ^a   Barozzi, L ^a   Bergamini, C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; DOSIMETRY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIATION RESPONSE; RADIOGRAPHY; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY;

HUMANS; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHY;

EID: 33751254335     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/bjr/57138583     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Gatt ME, Spectre G, Paltiel O, Hiller N, Stalnikowicz R. Chest radiographs in the emergency department: is the radiologist really necessary? Postgrad Med J 2003;79:214-7.
2. Volk M, Strotzer M, Gmeinwieser J, Alexander J, Frund R, Seitz J, et al. Flat-panel X-ray detector using amorphous silicon technology. Invest Radiol 1997;32:373-7.
3. International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990 Recommendations of the ICRP. Annals of the ICRP Vol. 21 Publication 60. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press, 1991.
4. McCollough CH, Schueler BA. Calculation of effective dose. Med Phys 2000;27:828-37.
5. Compagnone G, Pagan L, Bergamini C. Local diagnostic reference levels in standard X-ray examinations. Radiat Prot Dosim 2005;113:54-63.
6. Harpen MD. A mathematical spread sheet application for production of entrance skin exposure nomograms. Med Phys 1996;23:241-2.
7. European Commission. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. EUR 16260EN. Office for Official Publ. of the Europ Commun. 1996.
8. Hart D, Jones DG, Wall BF. Estimation of effective dose in diagnostic radiology from entrance surface dose and dose-area product measurements. NRPB-R262. Chilton, Didcot: National Radiological Protection Board, 1994.
9. Peters SE, Brennan PC. Digital radiography: are the manufacturers' settings too high? Optimisation of the Kodak digital radiography system with aid of the computed radiography dose index. Eur Radiol 2002;12:2381-7.
10. Bogucki TM, Trauernicht DP, Kocher TE. Characteristics of a storage phosphor system for medical imaging. Technical and Scientific Monograph 6. Rochester, USA: Kodak Health Sciences, 1995.
11. Livingstone RS, Koshy CG, Ray DV. Evaluation of work practices and radiation dose during adult micturating cystourethrography examinations performed using a digital imaging system. Br J Radiol 2004;77:927-30.
12. Weatherburn GC, Bryan S, Davies JG. Comparison of doses for bedside examinations of the chest with conventional screen-film and computed radiography: results of a randomized controlled trial. Radiology 2000;217:707-12.
13. Herrmann KA, Bonél H, Stabler A, Kulinna C, Glaser C, Holzknecht N, et al. Chest imaging with flat-panel detector at low and standard doses: comparison with storage phosphor technology in normal patients. Eur Radiol 2002;2:385-90.
14. Sandmayr H, Wallentin D. Computer integrated radiology system: analogue goes digital. Eur Radiol 1997;7(Suppl. 3):S90-3.
15. Weatherburn GC, Bryan S. The effect of a picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) on patient radiation doses for examination of the lateral lumbar spine. Br J Radiol 1999;72:534-45.
16. Bragg DG, Murray KA, Tripp D. Experiences with computed radiography: can we afford the cost? AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169:935-41.
17. Brennan PC, Devereux SA. An assessment of the usefulness of screen-film speed classifications. Eur Radiol 2002;12: 1577-83.
18. Guibelalde E, Fernandez JM, Vano E, Llorca A, Ruiz MJ. Image quality and patient dose for different screen-film combinations. Br J Radiol 1994;67:166-73.
19. Strotzer M, Gmeinwieser J, Spahn M, Volk M, Frund R, Seitz J, et al. Amorphous silicon, flat-panel, X-ray detector versus screen-film radiography. Invest Radiol 1998;33: 33-8.
20. Weatherburn GC, Bryan S, West M. A comparison of image reject rates when using film, hard copy computed radiography and soft copy images on picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) workstations. Br J Radiol 1999;72:653-60.
21. Cox R, McGibbon BH. Diagnostic medical exposures: advice on exposure to ionising radiation during pregnancy. Estimates of late radiation risks to the UK population. Documents of the National Radiological Protection Board, Vol.4,No.4, 1993.
22. Tsapaki V, Kottou S, Kollaros N, Dafnomili P, Koutelou M, Vano E, et al. Comparison of a conventional and a flat-panel digital system in interventional cardiology procedures. Br J Radiol 2004;77:562-7.
23. Samei E, Hill JG, Frey GD, Southgate WM, Mah E, Delong D. Evaluation of a flat panel digital radiographic system for low-dose portable imaging of neonates. Med Phys 2003;30:601-7.