An overall rejection rate of 12% indicates a need for optimizing radiographic practice in the department.

Purpose A contrast‐detail phantom such as CDRAD is frequently used for quality assurance, optimization of image quality, and several other purposes. However, it is often used without considering the uncertainty of the results. The aim of this study was to assess two figure of merits (FOM) originating from CDRAD regarding the variations of the FOMs by dose utilized to create the x‐ray image. The probability of overlapping (assessing an image acquired at a lower dose as better than an image acquired at a higher dose) was determined. Methods The CDRAD phantom located underneath 12, 20, and 26 cm PMMA was imaged 16 times at five dose levels using an x‐ray system with a flat‐panel detector. All images were analyzed by CDRAD Analyser, version 1.1, which calculated the FOM inverse image quality figure (IQFinv) and gave contrast detail curves for each image. Inherent properties of the CDRAD phantom were used to derive a new FOM h, which describes the size of the hole with the same diameter and depth that is just visible. Data were analyzed using heteroscedastic regression of mean and variance by dose. To ease interpretation, probabilities for overlaps were calculated assuming normal distribution, with associated bootstrap confidence intervals. Results The proportion of total variability in IQFinv, explained by the dose (R2), was 91%, 85%, and 93% for 12, 20, and 26 cm PMMA. Corresponding results for h were 91%, 89%, and 95%. The overlap probability for different mAs levels was 1% for 0.8 vs 1.2 mAs, 5% for 1.2 vs 1.6 mAs, 10% for 1.6 vs 2.0 mAs, and 10% for 2.0 mAs vs 2.5 mAs for 12 cm PMMA. For 20 cm PMMA, it was 0.5% for 10 vs 16 mAs, 13% for 16 vs 20 mAs, 14% for 20 vs 25 mAs, and 14% for 25 vs 32 mAs. For 26 cm PMMA, the probability varied from 0% to 6% for various mAs levels. Even though the estimated probability for overlap was small, the 95% confidence interval (CI) showed relatively large uncertainties. For 12 cm PMMA, the associated CI for 0.8 vs 1.2 mAs was 0.1–3.2%, and the CI for 1.2 vs 1.6 mAs was 2.1–7.8%. Conclusions Inverse image quality figure and h are about equally related to dose level. The FOM h, which describes the size of a hole that should be seen in the image, may be a more intuitive FOM than IQFinv. However, considering the probabilities for overlap and their confidence intervals, the FOMs deduced from the CDRAD phantom are not sensitive to dose. Hence, CDRAD may not be an optimal phantom to differentiate between images acquired at different dose levels.

a method to measure 2D K(2)SNR associated with grid use in digital radiography system was developed and validated. The proposed method requires four exposures and use of a simple formula. It is fast and provides adequate estimates for K(2)SNR.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PurposeThis study attempted to develop a method to measure the applied recursive filtration and to determine the noise reduction of four different fluoroscopic systems. The study also attempted to elucidate the importance of considering the recursive filter for quality control tests concerning signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR) or image quality. The vendor’s settings for recursive filtration factor (β) are, unfortunately, often not available. Hence, a method to determine the recursive filtration and associated noise reduction would be useful.MethodThe recursive filter was determined by using a single fluoroscopic series and the method presented in this study. The theoretical noise reduction based on the choice of β was presented. In addition, the corresponding noise reduction, evaluated as the ratio of the standard deviation of the pixel value between a series with β equal to zero (recursive filtration off) and β > 0, was determined for different pulse rates given by pulses per second (pps), doses (mAs) and recursive filter. The images were acquired using clinically relevant radiation quality and quantity.ResultsThe presented method to measure the recursive filter exhibited high accuracy (1.08%) and precision (1.48%). The recursive filtration and noise reduction were measured for several settings for each vendor. The recursive filtration settings and associated recursive filtration factors for four different vendors were presented.ConclusionsThis study presented an accurate method to determine applied recursive filtration, which was easy to determine. Hence, for all quality control purposes, including noise evaluation, it was possible to consider the essential noise reduction given by the settings for recursive filtration. It was also possible to compare the recursive filtration settings and associated recursive filtration within and between vendors.