A simple phantom study of the effects of dose reduction (by kVp increment) below current dose levels on CR chest image quality

Radiography

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 327-332

  Egbe, N O ^a   Heaton, B ^a   Sharp, P F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Chest; Clarity; Computed radiography; Contrast; Detectability; Manipulation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOGRAPHY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; IMAGE QUALITY; LUNG LESION; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; SIMULATION; THORAX RADIOGRAPHY;

EID: 77957297742     PISSN: 10788174     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2010.05.004     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Lamontagne N.D. Will digital edge out film?. Biophotonics International 2003, 10(4):48-53.
2. Rampado O., Isoardi P., Ropolo R. Quantitative assessment of computed radiography quality control parameters. Physics in Medicine and Biology 2006, 51(6):1577-1593.
3. Huda W., Rill L.N., Bruner A.P. Relative speeds of Kodak computed radiography phosphors and screen-film systems. Medical Physics 1997, 24(10):1621-1628.
4. Lu Z.F., Nickoloff E.L., So J.C., Dutta A.K. Comparison of computed radiography and film/screen combination using a contrast-detail phantom. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics 2003, 4(1):91-98.
5. Sandborg M., Tindberg A., Ullman G., Dance D.R., Alm Carlsson G. Comparison of clinical and physical measures of image quality in chest and pelvis computed radiography at different tube voltages. Medical Physics 2006, 33:4169-4175.
6. Tsalafoutas I.A., Blastaris G.A., Moutsatsos A.S., Chios P.S., Efstathopoulos E.P. Correlation of image quality with exposure index and processing protocol in a computed radiography system. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2008, 130(2):162-171. 10.1093/rpd/ncm493.
7. Sharp P.F. Quantifying image quality. Clinical Physics and Physiological Measurements 1990, 11(Suppl. A):21-26.
8. ACR practice guidelines for digital radiography 2007, American College of Radiologists.
9. Egbe N.O., Heaton B., Sharp P.F. Application of a simple phantom in assessing the effects of dose reduction on image quality in chest radiography. Radiography 2010, 16:108-114. 10.1016/j.radi.2009.09.007.
10. Vassileva J. A phantom for dose-image quality optimization in chest radiography. The British Journal of Radiology 2002, 75:837-842.
11. Al Khalifah K., Brindhaban A. Comparison between conventional radiography and digital radiography for various kVp and mAs settings using a pelvic phantom. Radiography 2004, 10:119-125.
12. Rowlands J.A. The physics of computed radiography. Physics in Medicine and Biology 2002, 47:R123-R166.
13. White D.R. Tissue substitutes in experimental radiation physics. Physics in Medicine and Biology 1978, 5(6):467-479.
14. Kazerooni E.A., Bhalla M., Shepard J.O., McLoud T.C. Adenosquamous carcinoma of the lung: radiologic appearance. American Journal of Roentgenology 1994, 163:301-306.
15. Akdeniz B., Grondahl H. Degradation of storage phosphor images due to scanning delay. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology 2006, 35(2):74-77.
16. ICRU ICRU Report No. 54: medical imaging. The assessment of image quality 1996, International Commission for Radiation Units and Measurements.
17. Martin C.J., Sharp P.F., Sutton D.G. Measurement of image quality in diagnostic radiology. Applied Radiation and Isotopes 1999, 50(1):21-38.
18. Brennan P.C., McDonnell S., O'Leary D. Increasing film-focus distance (FFD) reduces radiation dose for x-ray examinations. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2004, 108(3):263-268.
19. Kroft L.J.M., Veldkamp W.J.H., Mertens B.J.A., Van Delft J.-A., Geleijns J. Dose reduction in digital chest radiography and perceived image quality. The British Journal of Radiology 2007, 80(960):984-988.
20. Huda W., Ogden K.M., Samei E., Scalzetti E.M., Lavallee R.L., Roskopf M.L. Inter-reader variability in alternate forced choice studies. Proceedings of SPIE 2008, 6917. 691711-691711. 10.1117/12.770618.
21. Oakley J. Digital imaging: a primer for radiographers, radiologists and health care professionals 2006, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
22. AAPM assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems 2005, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Maryland, USA.
23. Ovsenik M., Farcnik F., Verdenik I. Intra- and inter-examination reliability of intraoral malocclusion assessment. European Journal of Orthodontics 2007, 29:88-94.
24. Landis J.R., Koch G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33:159-174.
25. Workman A., Cowen A.R. Signal, noise and SNR transfer properties of computed radiography. Physics in Medicine and Biology 1993, 38:1789-1808.
26. Fetterley K.A., Hangiandreou N.J. Effects of the x-ray spectra on the DQE of a computed radiography system. Medical Physics 2001, 28:241-248.
27. Weatherburn G.C., Davies J.G. Comparison of film, hard copy computed radiography (CR) and soft copy picture archiving and communication (PACS) systems using a contrast detail test object. The British Journal of Radiology 1999, 72:856-863.
28. Dowsett D.J., Kenny P.A., Johnston R.E. The physics of diagnostic imaging 2006, Hodder Arnold, London. 2nd ed.
29. Cowen A., Workman A., Price J. Physical aspects of photostimulable phosphor computed radiography. The British Journal of Radiology 1993, 66(784):332-345.
30. Martin C.J. Optimisation in general radiography. Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal 2007, 3(2). Available from. http://www.biij.org/2007/2/e18.
31. Compagnone G., Baleni M.C., Pagan L., Calzolaio F.L., Barozzi L., Bergamini C. Comparison of radiation doses to patients undergoing standard radiographic examinations with conventional screen-film radiography, computed radiography and direct digital radiography. The British Journal of Radiology 2006, 79(947):899-904.
32. Scharitzer M., Prokop M., Weber M., Fuchsjager M., Oschatz E., Schaefer-Prokop C. Detectability of catheters on bedside chest radiographs: comparison between liquid crystal display and high resolution cathode ray tube monitors. Radiology 2005, 234(2):611-616.
33. Park C.M., Lee H.J., Goo J.M., Han D.H., Kim J.H., Lim K.Y., et al. Comparison of observer performance on soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs: high resolution liquid-crystal display monitors versus cathode-ray tube monitors. European Journal of Radiology 2008, 66(1):13-18.