No abstract

This article reviews the parameters that characterise the image quality of digital radiography and the available evaluation methods that are used to measure these parameters. The article also discusses the factors that affect each parameter of image quality. Digital imaging systems are the most commonly utilised technology in the field of radiology. Screen‐film radiography systems are almost replaced by digital radiography. The data acquisition and image processing principles of digital radiography differ from that of conventional radiography. The required exposure factors for each digital radiography system are not the same. Therefore, the image quality should be optimised while lower radiation dose is maintained according to the properties of the specific imaging system. Distinguishing image quality parameters and understanding the factors that control each image quality parameter are essential to optimise and maintain image quality and to reduce radiation dose to the patient. The degree of factors effects on the images of different digital radiography types and systems are not exactly same. There are different methods and approaches that are used to evaluate the quality of medical images and to assess the performance of imaging systems and each has its own rewards and limits. Therefore, these methods should be utilised and employed according to their aptitudes to improve imaging process.

Background: To evaluate contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) measurements in assessing image quality, in the context of the detectability performance of low-contrast detail (LCD), in computed tomography (CT) images, since exposure to elevated ionising-type radiation is considered to present excessive carcinogenic risk, whilst also causing distress in study subjects. Methods: An LCD phantom module (CTP515) was utilised in the study. Three dissimilar contrast items were used to analyse the ramifications of the proportions of an object on the CNR. Three multidetector CT (MDCT) scanners were used, with 16-MDCT, 64-MDCT and 80-MDCT frameworks, respectively. The CT scans were recreated using three dissimilar remaking algorithms—soft, standard and lung. The effects exerted on the CNR by various remodelling algorithms, as well as the contrast of various objects along with the size of the objects, were explored. The Hounsfield units of each chosen object (one unit representing the outer portion of the object) and the background and the standard deviation of the noise parameter were quantified, and algorithms were developed using MATLAB. Results: The CNR information was greatly influenced by changing the image recreation calculations and was very much increased in the soft-tissue recreation images using 16-MDCT and 64-MDCT. The CNR information was also increased more in the optimum recreation images than in the reproduced images from the computational procedure used in the 80-MDCT. The results did not show any remarkable contrasts in the CNR values between the different object sizes. Overall, a higher kVp produced an improved CNR in all the CT scanners. In particular, there were prominent upgrades in the CNR information when the kVp was increased from 80 to 120. Higher mAs levels gave better CNR values overall, especially for greater section thicknesses. Based on the CNR estimations, the 64-MDCT provided the best correlation among the CT scanners. Conclusions: The objective LCD appraisal method, based on CNR measurements, was confirmed as being useful for checking the different impacts of kVp, mAs and section thickness on the nature of the picture. This procedure was similarly viable in assessing the impacts of the different reconstruction calculations and the different differentiation questions on the nature of the image.

Computed tomography (CT) is a key imaging technique in diagnostic radiology, providing highly sensitive and specific information. While its use has increased dramatically in recent years, the quantity and associated risks of radiation from CT scans present major challenges, particularly in paediatrics. The fundamental principles of radiation protection require that radiation quantities be as low as reasonably achievable and CT use must be justified, particularly for paediatric patients. CT radiation knowledge is a key factor in optimising and minimising radiation risk. The objective of this study was to analyse knowledge level, expertise, and competency regarding CT radiation dose and its hazards in paediatrics among radiologists in Saudi Arabian hospitals. A self-reported, multiple-choice questionnaire assessed the attitudes and opinions of radiologists involved in imaging studies using ionising radiation. Among the total respondents, 65% ± 13.5% had a good comprehension of the dangers of carcinogenicity to the patient resulting from CT scans, with 80% presuming that cancer risks were elevated. However, only 48.5%, 56.5%, and 65% of the respondents were aware of specific radiation risks in head, chest, and abdominal paediatric examinations, respectively. Regular, frequent, and specific training courses are suggested to improve the fundamental knowledge of CT radiation among radiologists and other physicians.

IntroductionDigital radiography (DR) systems enable radiographers to reduce the radiation dose to patients while maintaining optimised image quality. However, concerns still exist about paediatric patients who may be exposed to an increased level of radiation dose which is not needed for clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the knowledge, awareness and attitudes, in terms of image quality optimisation of radiographers undertaking paediatric DR in Australia and Saudi Arabia.MethodsA survey‐based study was devised and distributed to radiographers from Australia and Saudi Arabia. Questions focused on Australian and Saudi Arabian radiographers’ knowledge and attitude of paediatric DR examinations.ResultsThere were 376 participants who responded to the survey from both countries. A major finding showed that most participants lack knowledge in the area of paediatric DR examinations. Most participants from Australia had received no formal training in paediatric digital radiography (79%), whereas nearly half of the participants from Saudi Arabia received no training (45%). Approximately three out of four radiographers from both countries believed that when using DR they did not need to change the way they collimate the beam as DR images can be cropped using post‐processing methods.ConclusionThe finding of this study demonstrates that radiographers from both countries should improve their understanding and clinical use of DR in paediatric imaging. More education and training for both students and clinicians is needed to enhance radiographer performance in digital radiography and improve their clinical practices.