A comparison of low contrast performance for amorphous Silicon/caesium iodide direct radiography with a computed radiography: A contrast detail phantom study

Radiography

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 89-94

  McEntee, Mark ^a   Frawley, Helena ^b   Brennan, Patrick C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

^b BEAUMONT HOSPITAL   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Computed radiography; Contrast detail resolution; Direct radiography; Dose efficiency

Indexed keywords

CESIUM; CONTRAST MEDIUM; SILICON DIOXIDE;

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOGRAPHY; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; FORCED CHOICE METHOD; LUNG METASTASIS; PNEUMOTHORAX; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY;

EID: 34247380733     PISSN: 10788174     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2006.01.004     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Chotas H., Dobbins J., and Ravin C. Principles of digital radiography with large area electronically readable detectors: a review of basics. Radiology 210 (1999) 595-599
2. Aufrichtig R., and Xue P. Dose efficiency and low contrast detectability of an amorphous silicon X-ray detector for digital radiography. Physics in Medicine and Biology 45 (2000) 2653-2669
3. Floyd C., Warp K., Dobbins J., Chotas H., Baydush A., Vargas-Voracek R., et al. Imaging characteristics of an amorphous silicon flat panel detector for digital chest radiography. Radiology 218 (2001) 683-688
4. Sanfridsson J., and Holje G. Radiation dose and image information in computed radiography. Acta Radiologica 41 (2000) 310-316
5. Yaffe M., and Rowlands J. X-ray detectors for digital radiography. Physics in Medicine and Biology 42 (1997) 1-39
6. Workman A., and Cowen A. Improved image quality utilizing dual plate computed radiography. The British Journal of Radiology 68 (1995) 182-188
7. Granfors P. Performance characteristics of an amorphous silicon flat panel X-ray imaging detector. Proceedings of SPIE 3659 (1999) 480-490
8. Bogucki T., Trauernicht D., and Kocher T. Characteristics of a storage phosphor system for medical imaging. Technical and scientific monograph (1995), Kodak Health Sciences
9. Bosmans H., Carton A.K., Pauwels H., Deprez T., and Marchal G. The assessment of dose and image quality of storage phosphor systems: an overview of the different tasks. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 94 (2001) 77-81
10. Thijssen M., Bijkerk K., and van der Burght R. Manual CD RAD phantom type 2.0: project in quality assurance in radiology (1998), Section Clinical Physics, Department of Radiology, University hospital Nijmegen, St. Radboud, American Association of Physics in Medicine
11. Peer S., Neitzel U., Giacomuzzi S., Gassner E., Steinberg I., and Jaschke W. Comparison of low contrast detail perception on storage phosphor radiographs and digital flat panel detector images. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 20 (2001) 239-242
12. Thijssen M., Thijssen H., Merx J., Lindeijer J., and Bijkerk K. A definition of image quality: the image quality figure. Report of the British Institute of Radiology vol. 20 (1989) p. 29-34
13. AAPM Task Group #10. Acceptance testing and quality control of photostimulable storage phosphor imaging systems. Version 4, 1998; vol. 1. p. 1-80.
14. Samei E., Seibert J., Willis C., Flynn M., Mah E., and Junck K. Performance evaluation of computed radiography systems. Medical Physics 28 (2001) 361-371
15. Geijer H., Beckman K., Andersson T., and Perliden J. Image quality vs radiation dose for a flat-panel amorphous silicon detector: a phantom study. European Radiology 11 (2001) 1704-1709
16. Aufrichtig R. Comparison of low contrast detectability between digital amorphous silicon and a screen-film based imaging system for thoracic radiography. Medical Physics 26 (1999) 1349-1358
17. Mansson L.G. Methods for the evaluation of image quality: a review. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 90 (2000) 89-99
18. CEC (Commission of the European Communities). European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. EUR 16260 EN. In: Carmicheal J.H.E., Maccia C., Moores B.M., Oestmann J.W., Schibilla H., Teunen D., Tiggelen R.V., and Wall B. (Eds) (1996), CEC, Brussels
19. Daly L.E., and Bourke G.J. Interpretation and use of medical statistics. 5th ed. (2000), Blackwell Science p. 203-224
20. McClave J., Dietrich F., and Sincich T. Statistics. 7th ed. (1997), Prentice Hall p. 29-35, 296-300, 308-13, 341-51, 359-66 & 413-7
21. Rong X.J., Shaw C.C., Liu X., Lemacks X.L., and Thompson S.K. Comparison of an amorphous silicon/caesium iodide flat panel digital chest radiography system with screen/film and computed radiography systems - a contrast detail phantom study. Medical Physics 28 11 (2001) 2328-2335
22. Aufrichtig R. Comparison of low contrast detectability between a digital amorphous Silicon and the screen film based imaging system for thoracic radiography. Medical Physics 26 7 (1999) 1349-1358
23. Volk M., Strotzer M., Holznecht N., Manke C., Lenhart M., Gmeinweiser J., et al. Digital radiography of the skeleton using a large area detector based on amorphous silicon technology: image quality and potential for dose reduction in comparison with screen film radiography. Clinical Radiology 55 (2000) 615-621