Comparison of computed radiography and film/screen combination using a contrast‐detail phantom

Lu, Zheng Feng; Nickoloff, Edward L.; So, J; Dutta, Avishek

doi:10.1120/jacmp.v4i1.2548

Cited by 19 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…CR examinations usually have higher doses than both DR and plain-film radiography [1,[17][18][19][20]. This increased dose is required to provide diagnostic quality images and is justified by the benefits associated with CR systems, including digital image processing, PACS storage, and easy conversion of existing plain-film radiography rooms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Patient Doses in CR Examinations Throughout a Large Health Region

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Optimization and standardization of radiographic procedures in a health region minimizes patient exposure while producing diagnostic images. This report highlights the dose variation in common computed radiography (CR) examinations throughout a large health region. The RadChex cassette was used to measure the radiation exposure at the table or wall bucky in 20 CR rooms, in seven hospitals, using CR technology from two vendors. Exposures were made to simulate patient exposure (21 cm polymethyl methacrylate) under standard conditions for each bucky: 81 kVp at 100 cm for anteroposterior abdomen table bucky exposures (180 cm for posteroanterior chest wall bucky exposures), using the left, the right, or the center automatic exposure control (AEC) cells. Protocol settings were recorded. An average of 37% variation was found between AEC chambers, with a range between 4% and 137%. A 60% difference in dose was discovered between manufacturers, which was the result of the manufacture's image processing algorithm and subsequently corrected via software updates. Finally, standardizing AEC cell selection during common chest examinations could reduce patient dose by up to 30%. In a large health region, variation in exam protocols can occur, leading to unnecessary patient dose from the same type of examination. Quality control programs must monitor exam protocols and AEC chamber calibration in CR to ensure consistent, minimal, patient dose, regardless of hospital or CR vendor. Furthermore, this report highlights the need for communication between radiologists, technologists, medical physicist, service engineers, and manufacturers required to optimize CR protocols.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Patient Doses in CR Examinations Throughout a Large Health Region

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…CDA is an approach to describing the image quality in terms of detail (drilled holes of varying diameter) and contrast (varying depth). 45 Low contrast-detail detectability implies that the detectability of details increases with increasing the size of objects and/or contrast between the objects and the background. For example, when the objects' size increases while keeping the contrast diff erences the same, the detectability will increase.…”

Section: Information Entropymentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality parameters and assessment methods of digital radiography images

Alsleem

Davidson

2012

Radiographer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…The CDRAD phantom from Nuclear Associates is an excellent tool for evaluating the imaging characteristics of digital radiographic systems. The CDRAD phantom is a 265 × 265 × 10 (height × width × depth) mm acrylic sheet with drilled holes of various depths and diameters, divided into 225 squares of equal sizes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…X-ray examinations provide valuable information about patients' health and play an important role in helping doctor make accurate diagnoses (1)(2)(3). Beyond a certain level of physical image qualitywhere all the important features are already visible and no additional image information that would be useful for the radiologist can be brought in this imagethe performance will saturate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the evaluation of a high-quality image, small holes and low contrasts can be seen as the results in a CD curve in the lower left part of the image. Based on the CD curve, a numerical value, describing the image quality figure (IQF) of the image, can be calculated (1,3). The image quality figure (IQF) is calculated from the minimum depth and diameter of the air-filled cavities that the observers are able to detect.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation