Comparison of an amorphous silicon/cesium iodide flat‐panel digital chest radiography system with screen/film and computed radiography systems — A contrast‐detail phantom study

Rong, Xiujiang; Shaw, Chris C.; Liu, Xinming; Lemacks, Michael R.; Thompson, Stephen K.

doi:10.1118/1.1408620

Cited by 83 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The flat panel detector systems (DR) are characterized by markedly increased dose efficiency compared with film/screen or storage phosphor radiography [1]. As a result, multiple studies have shown that considerable dose reduction is feasible without significant loss of diagnostic information.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result, multiple studies have shown that considerable dose reduction is feasible without significant loss of diagnostic information. The reported degree of possible dose reduction, however, is quite variable, with results ranging from 20% to 50% [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Differences in these results appear to be dependent on the level of acquisition dose, the reference technique used for comparison (conventional film or CR), the statistical analysis applied (ROC or preference study), and the type of lesions studied (phantom or clinical set-up).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Direct detector radiography versus dual reading computed radiography: feasibility of dose reduction in chest radiography

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The image quality of dual-reading computed radiography and dose-reduced direct radiography of the chest was compared in a clinical setting. The study group consisted of 50 patients that underwent three posteroanterior chest radiographs within minutes, one image obtained with a dual read-out computed radiography system (CR; Fuji 5501) at regular dose and two images with a flat panel direct detector unit (DR; Diagnost, Philips). The DR images were obtained with the same and with 50% of the dose used for the CR images. Images were evaluated in a blinded side-by-side comparison. Eight radiologists ranked the visually perceivable difference in image quality using a three-point scale. Then, three radiologists scored the visibility of anatomic landmarks in low and high attenuation areas and image noise. Statistical analysis was based on Friedman tests and Wilcoxon rank sum tests at a significance level of P<0.05. DR was judged superior to CR for the delineation of structures in high attenuation areas of the mediastinum even when obtained with 50% less dose (P<0.001). The visibility of most pulmonary structures was judged equivalent with both techniques, regardless of acquisition dose and speed level. Scores for image noise were lower for DR compared with CR, with the exception of DR obtained at a reduced dose. Thus, in this clinical preference study, DR was equivalent or even superior to the most modern dual read-out CR, even when obtained with 50% dose. A further dose reduction does not appear to be feasible for DR without significant loss of image quality.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Direct detector radiography versus dual reading computed radiography: feasibility of dose reduction in chest radiography

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been observed that, with CD phantom, there can also be large variations in subjective opinion regarding image quality between different observers. 6,7 At our Radiology department, the x-ray images are totally digitized. In the quality control program and optimization processes of this department, a matter of concern has been the ability to conduct image quality evaluations that would exclude human variations in the results.…”

Section: Y3mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been reported that, for images of a contrast-detail phantom, there are no significant differences between radiologists and non-radiologists. 7 (2) Images used in a previous study, 6 which were evaluated by four human observers, two radiologists and two medical physicists. The evaluations performed by the human observers were compared to the computer evaluation.…”

Section: Radiographic Imagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Clinical Evaluation of the Image Quality Computer Program, CoCIQ

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To provide an objective way of measuring image quality, a computer program was designed that automatically analyzes the test images of a contrast-detail (CD) phantom. The program gives a quantified measurement of image quality by calculating an Image Quality Figure (IQF). The aim of this work was to evaluate the program and adjust it to clinical situations in order to find the detectable level where the program gives a reliable figure of the contrast resolution. The program was applied on a large variety of images with lumbar spine and urographic parameters, from very low to very high image qualities. It was shown that the computer program produces IQFs with small variations and there were a strong linear statistical relation between the computerized evaluation and the evaluation performed by human observers ( R 2 = 0.98). This method offers a fast and easy way of conducting image quality evaluations.

show abstract