Quality parameters and assessment methods of digital radiography images

Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences

Volumn 59, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 46-55

  Alsleem, H ^a   Davidson, R ^b  

^a RMIT UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

digital radiography; evaluation methods; image quality parameters

Indexed keywords

EID: 84878620922     PISSN: 20513895     EISSN: 20513909     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/j.2051-3909.2012.tb00174.x     Document Type: Review

References (53)

1. Körner M, Weber CH, Wirth S, Pfeifer KJ, Reiser MF, Treitl M. Advances in digital radiography: Physical principles and system pverview. Radiographics 2007; 27 (3): 675–86.
2. Williams MB, Krupinski EA, Strauss KJ, Breeden WK III, Rzeszotarski MS, Applegate K, et al. Digital radiography image quality: Image acquisition. J Am Coll Radiol 2007; 4 (6): 371–88.
3. Schaefer-Prokop C, Neitzel U, Venema H, Uffmann M, Prokop M. Digital chest radiography: An update on modern technology, dose containment and control of image quality. Eur Radiol 2008; 18 (9): 1818–30.
4. Cowen A, Kengyelics S, Davies A. Solid-state, flat-panel, digital radiography detectors and their physical imaging characteristics. Clin Radiol 2008; 63 (5): 487–98.
5. Uffmann M, Schaefer-Prokop C. Digital radiography: THe balance between image quality and required radiation dose. Eur J Radiol 2009; 72 (2): 202–08.
6. Goldman LW. Principles of CT: Radiation dose and image quality. J Nucl Med Technol 2007; 35 (4): 213–25.
7. Tsai D, Lee Y, Matsuyama E. Information entropy measure for evaluation of image quality. J Digit Imaging 2008; 21 (3): 338–47.
8. Hendee WR, Ritenour ER. Influences on image quality. Medical imaging physics. (4th edition). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2003. p. 265–80.
9. Bourne R. Fundamentals of digital imaging in medicine. (1st edition). Springer; 2010.
10. Chotas HG, Dobbins JT, Ravin CE. Principles of digital radiography with large-area, electronically readable detectors: A review of the basics. Radiology 1999; 210 (3): 595–99.
11. Samei E, Ranger NT, Dobbins JT III, Chen Y. Intercomparison of methods for image quality characterization. I. Modulation transfer function. Med Phys 2006; 33 (5): 1454–65.
12. Samei E. Performance of digital radiography detectors: Factors affecting sharpness and noise. In: Advances in Digital Radiography. Oak Brook: Radiological Society of North America 2003.
13. Krupinski EA, Williams MB, Andriole K, Strauss KJ, Applegate K, Wyatt M, et al. Digital radiography image quality: ImaGe processing and display. J Am Coll Radiol 2007; 4 (6): 389–400.
14. Sprawls P. Physical principles of medical imaging. (2nd edition). Medical Physics Pub Corp; 1995.
15. Tapiovaara M. Relationships between physical measurements and user evaluation of image quality in medical radiology - a review. Vantaa: Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority 2006.
16. Willis CE, Thompson SK, Shepard SJ. Artifacts and misadventures in digital radiography. Appl Radiol 2004; 33 (1): 11–21.
17. Bushong S. Radiologic science for technologists: Physics, biology, and protection. (9th edition). Mosby; 2008.
18. Shetty CM, Barthur A, Kambadakone A, Narayanan N, Kv R. Computed radiography image artifacts revisited. AJR 2011; 196 (1): W37–47.
19. Honey ID, Mackenzie A. Artifacts found during quality assurance testing of computed radiography and digital radiography detectors. J Digit Imaging 2009; 22 (4): 383–92.
20. Jimenez DA, Drose WM, Reese DJ, Hornof WJ. Digital radiography artifacts. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2008; 49 (4): 321–32.
21. Seeram E. Computed tomography: PhysicAl principles, clinical applications and quality assurance. (3rd edition). Saunders; 2009.
22. Kalender W, Khadivi K. Computed tomography: Fundamentals, system technology, image quality, applications. (3rd edition). John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
23. Seibert JA. Tradeoffs between image quality and dose. Pediatr Radiol 2004; 34 (2): 183–84.
24. Aichinger H, Dierker J, Joite-Barfuß S, Säbel M. Image quality and dose radiation exposure and image quality in x-ray diagnostic radiology. (2nd edition). Erlangen: Springer; 2012. Pp 85–101.
25. Launders J, Cowen A, Bury R, Hawkridge P. Towards image quality, beam energy and effective dose optimisation in digital thoracic radiography. Eur Radiol 2001; 11 (5): 870–75.
26. Uffmann M, Neitzel U, Prokop M, Kabalan N, Weber M, Herold CJ, et al. Flat-panel-detector chest radiography: Effect of tube voltage on image quality. Radiology 2005; 235 (2): 642–50.
27. De Hauwere A, Bacher K, Smeets P, Verstraete K, Thierens H. Analysis of image quality in digital chest imaging. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005; 117 (1–3): 174–77.
28. Dossel O, Schlegel WC. Optimization of exposure factors and image quality for computed radiography. World congress on medical physics and biomedical engineering: SpringEr 2009. Pp 251–4.
29. Rahn J, Lemmi F, Lu J, Mei P, Apte R, Street R, et al. High resolution x-ray imaging using amorphous silicon flat-panel arrays. Nuclear Science. IEEE Transactions on. 1999; 46 (3): 457–61.
30. Uffmann M, Schaefer-Prokop C, Neitzel U, Weber M, Herold CJ, Prokop M. Skeletal Applications for flat-panel versus storage-phosphor radiography: Effect of exposure on detection of low-contrast details. Radiology 2004; 231 (2): 506–14.
31. Krupinski EA, Berbaum KS. The Medical Image Perception Society update on key issues for image perception research. Radiology 2009; 253 (1): 230–33.
32. Mansson L. Methods for the evaluation of image quality: A review. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2000; 90 (1): 89–99.
33. Zarb F, Rainford L, McEntee MF. Image quality assessment tools for optimization of CT images. Radiography 2010; 16 (2): 147–53.
34. Pascoal A, Lawinski C, Honey I, Blake P. Evaluation of a software package for automated quality assessment of contrast detail images – comparison with subjective visual assessment. Phys Med Biol 2005; 50 (23): 5743–57.
35. Bath M. Evaluating imaging systems: Practical applications. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2010; 139 (1–3): 26–36.
36. Ranger N, Samei E, Dobbins J, Ravin C. Assessment of detective quantum efficiency: Intercomparison of a recently introduced international standard with prior methods. Radiology 2007; 243 (3): 785–95.
37. Samei E, Ranger N, MacKenzie A, Honey I, Dobbins J III, Ravin C. Effective DQE (eDQE) and speed of digital radiographic systems: An experimental methodology. Med Phys 2009; 36 (8): 3806–17.
38. Samei E, Ranger N, MacKenzie A, Honey I, Dobbins J, Ravin C. Detector or system? Extending the concept of detective quantum efficiency to characterize the performance of digital radiographic imaging systems 1. Radiology 2008; 249 (3): 926–37.
39. Burgess A. The Rose model, revisited. JOSA A 1999; 16 (3): 633–46.
40. Giovanni B, Ehsan S, Marco B, Andrea N, Davide T. Contrast-detail analysis of three flat panel detectors for digital radiography. Med Phys 2006; 33 (6): 1707–19.
41. Uchida S, Tsai D. Evaluation of radiographic images by entropy: ApplicatiOn to development process. Jpn J Appl Phys 1978; 17: 2029–34.
42. Niimi T, Imai K, Maeda H, Ikeda M. Information loss in visual assessments of medical images. Eur J Radiol 2007; 61 (2): 362–66
43. Swets JA, Green DM, Getty DJ, Swets JB. Signal detection and identification at successive stages of observation. Percept Psychophys 1978; 23 (4): 275–89.
44. Chao E, Toth T, Bromberg N, Williams E, Fox S, Carleton D. A statistical method of defining low contrast detectability. Medicine [serial on the Internet]. 2000: AvailabLe from: http://www.mendeley.com/research/statistical-method-defining-low-contrast-detectability/.
45. Lu Z, Nickoloff E, So J, Dutta A. Comparison of computed radiography and film/screen combination using a contrast-detail phantom. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2003; 4 (1): 91–98.
46. Davidson R. Radiographic contrast-enhancement masks in digital radiography [PhD Thesis]. Sydeny:The University of Sydney; 2007. Thesis location: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/1932.
47. Faulkner K, Moores B. Noise and contrast detection in computed tomography images. Phys Med Biol 1984; 29 (4): 329–39.
48. Aufrichtig R, Xue P. Dose efficiency and low-contrast detectability of an amorphous silicon x-ray detector for digital radiography. Phys Med Biol 2000; 45 (9): 2653–69.
49. De Crop A, Bacher K, Van Hoof T, Smeets P, Smet B, Vergauwen M, et al. Correlation of contrast-detail analysis and clinical image quality assessment in chest radiography with a human cadaver Study. Radiology 2012; 262 (1): 298–304.
50. Obuchowski N. Receiver operating characteristic curves and their use in radiology. Radiology 2003; 229 (1): 3–8.
51. Ludewig E, Richter A, Frame M. Diagnostic imaging – evaluating image quality using visual grading characteristic (VGC) analysis. Vet Res Commun 2010; 34 (5): 473–79.
52. Bath M, Mansson LG. Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: A non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation. Br J Radiol 2007; 80 (951): 169–76.
53. Green D, Swets JA. Signal detection theory and psychophysics: Krieger Pub. Co.; 1974.