Physical image quality comparison of four types of digital detector for chest radiology

Radiation Protection Dosimetry

Volumn 129, Issue 1-3, 2008, Pages 140-143

  Fernandez, J M ^a   Ordiales, J M ^a   Guibelalde, E ^b   Prieto, C ^a   Vano, E ^a,b  

^a HOSPITAL CLÍNICO SAN CARLOS   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOGRAPHY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; DOSIMETRY; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PHANTOM; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIODIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; SIMULATION; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOLOGY;

HUMANS; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; RADIOGRAPHY, THORACIC; RADIOLOGY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 55249084924     PISSN: 01448420     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncn026     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. International Commission, on Radiological Protection. Managing Patient Dose in Digital Radiology. ICRP Publication 93. Ann. ICRP 34, 1-73 (2004).
2. Vano, E,, Fernandez, J. M., Ten, J. I., Prieto, C., Gonzalez, L., Rodriguez, R. and de Las Heras, H. Transition from Screen-Film to Digital Radiography: Evolution of Patient Radiation Doses at Projection Radiography. Radiology. 243(2), 461-466 (2007).
3. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Radiological Protection and Safety in Medicine. ICRP Publication 73. Ann, ICRP 26, 1-47 (1996).
4. International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1990 recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 60. Ann. ICRP 21, 1-201 (1991).
5. European Commission. Council Directive 97/43/EURATOM of 30 June 1997 on heolth protection of individuals against the danger of ionizihg radiation in relation to medical exposure. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 180, 22-27 (1997).
6. European Commission. Guidance on diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for medical exposures. Radiation Protection 109 Report, General Directorate Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection. Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities. L-2985 Luxembourg. (1999).
7. Thijssen, M. A. O., Thijssen, H. O. M., Merx, J. L., Lindeijer, J. M. and Bijkerk, K. R. A definition of image quality: The image quality figure. BIR Report 20: Optimisation of Image Quality and Patient Exposure in Diagnostic Radiology, London, (1989).
8. Norrman, E., Gardestig, M., Persliden, J. and Geijer, H. A clinical evaluation of the image quality computer program, CoCIQ. J. Digit. Imaging. 18(2), 138-44 (2005).
9. Pascoal, A., Lawinski, C. P., Honey, I. and Blake, P. Evaluation of a software package for automated quality assessment of contrast detail images-comparison with subjective visual assessment. Phys, Med. Biol. 7, 50(23), 5743-5757 (2005).
10. European Commission. European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. Report EUR 16260. Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities. L-29 Luxembourg (1996).
11. Busch, H. P., Busch, S., Decker, C. and Schilz, C. [Image quality and exposure dose in digital projection radiography] Rofo. 175(1), 32-37 (2003). In German.
12. Fischbach, F., Ricke, J., Freund, T., Verk, M., Spors, B., Baumann, C., Pech., M. J. and Felix, R. Flat, panel digital radiography compared with storage phosphor computed radiography: Assessment of dose versus image quality in phantom studies. Invest Radiol. 37(11), 609-614 (2002).
13. Geijer, H., Beckman, K. W., Andersson, T. and Persliden, J. Image quality vs. radiation dose for a flatpanel amorphous silicon detector a phantom study. Eur. Radiol. 11(9), 1704-1709 (2001).
14. Peer, S., Neitzel, U., Giacomuzzi, S. M., Peer, R., Gassner, E., Steingruber, I. and Jaschke, W. Comparison of low-contrast detail perception on storage phosphor radiographs and digital flat panel detector images. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging. 20(3), 239-242 (2001).
15. Korner, M., Treid, M., Schaetzing, R., Pfeifer, K. J., Reiser, M. and Wirth, S. Depiction of low-contrast detail in digital radiography: comparison of powder- and needle-structured storage phosphor systems. Invest Radiol. 41(7), 593-599 (2006).