10kVp rule - An anthropomorphic pelvis phantom imaging study using a CR system: Impact on image quality and effective dose using AEC and manual mode

Radiography

Volumn 20, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 333-338

  Lança, Luís ^a   Franco, Loris ^b   Ahmed, Abdulfatah ^c   Harderwijk, Marloes ^d   Marti, Chloe ^b   Nasir, Sadeeda ^c   Ndlovu, Junior ^c   Oliveira, Miguel ^a   Santiago, Ana Rita ^a   Hogg, Peter ^c  

^a INSTITUTO POLITÉCNICO DE LISBOA   (Portugal)

^b Clinical Research Unit   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD   (United Kingdom)

^d HANZE UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

10kVp rule; AEC; CR; Effective dose; Perceptual image quality

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; COMPUTER ASSISTED RADIOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FORCED CHOICE METHOD; HUMAN; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING PHANTOM; IMAGING SOFTWARE; RADIATION RESPONSE; X RAY GENERATOR; X RAY TUBE;

EID: 84908540234     PISSN: 10788174     EISSN: 15322831     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2014.04.007     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Martin C.J. Management of patient dose in radiology in the UK. Radiat Prot Dosim 2011 Nov, 147(3):355-372. [Internet], [cited 26.03.12]. Available from:. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22008582.
2. Ma W.K., Hogg P., Tootell a, Manning D., Thomas N., Kane T., et al. Anthropomorphic chest phantom imaging - the potential for dose creep in computed radiography. Radiography 2013 Aug, 19(3):207-211. [Internet], [cited 18.11.13]. Available from:. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1078817413000424.
3. European Commission Radiation Protection N° 154 European guidance on estimating population doses from medical x-ray procedures [Internet]. Available from:. http://ddmed.eu/_media/background_of_ddm1:rp154.pdf.
4. Ofori E.K., Antwi W.K., Scutt D.N., Ward M. Optimization of patient radiation protection in pelvic X-ray examination in Ghana. JAppl Clin Med Phys 2012 Jan, 13(4):3719. [Internet], Available from:. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22766943.
5. Lança L., Silva A. Technical considerations concerning digital technologies 2013, 37-47. Digit Imaging Syst Plain Radiogr, Springer, New York.
6. Brennan P.C., McCandless N., Masterson J. Modern day film-screen combinations do not obey conventional exposure rules. Radiography 1997, 3(4):305-310. [Internet], Available from:. http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0030723703%26partnerID=40%26md5=1ba8e96402a7342a3f8b01918945a2cd.
7. Allen E., Hogg P., Ma W.K., Szczepura K. Fact or fiction: an analysis of the 10 kVp "rule" in computed radiography. Radiography 2013 Aug, 19(3):223-227. [Internet], [cited 16.11.13]. Available from:. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1078817413000497.
8. Burgess A.E. Visual perception studies and observer models in medical imaging. Semin Nucl Med 2011 Nov, 41(6):419-436. [Internet]. Elsevier Inc., [cited 18.11.13]. Available from:. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21978445.
9. Mraity H., Hogg P. Development and validation of a psychometric scale for assessing pelvis image quality 2013, University of Salford.
10. The Phantom Laboratory Sectional lower Torso SK250 [Internet] [cited 1BC Aug 27]. Available from:. http://www.phantomlab.com/library/pdf/sectional_SK250DS.pdf.
11. Hogg P., Blindell P. Software for image quality evaluation using a forced choice method 2012, 139. United Kingdom Radiological Congress, Manchester.
12. Abràmoff M.D., Hospitals I., Magalhães P.J., Abràmoff M. Image processing with ImageJ [Internet]. Available from:. http://rsbweb.nih.gov/ij/docs/faqs.html.
13. Samei E., Badano A., Chakraborty D., Compton K., Cornelius C., Corrigan K., et al. Assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems: executive summary of AAPM TG18 report. Med Phys 2005, 32(4):1205. [Internet], [cited 21.11.13]. Available from:. http://link.aip.org/link/MPHYA6/v32/i4/p1205/s1%26Agg=doi.