Contrast-detail evaluation and dose assessment of eight digital chest radiography systems in clinical practice

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess contrast-detail performance and effective dose of eight different digital chest radiography systems. Digital chest radiography systems from different manufacturers were included: one storage phosphor system, one selenium-coated drum system, and six direct readout systems including four thin-film transistor (TFT) systems and two charge-coupled device (CCD) systems. For measuring image quality, a contrast-detail test object was used in combination with a phantom that simulates the primary and scatter transmission through lung fields (LucAl). Six observers judged phantom images of each modality by soft-copy reading in a four-alternative-forced-choice experiment. The entrance dose was also measured, and the effective dose was calculated for an average patient. Contrast-detail curves were constructed from the observer data. The blocked two-way ANOVA test was used for statistical analysis. Significant difference in contrast-detail performance was found between the systems. Best contrast-detail performance was shown by a CCD system with slot-scan technology, and the selenium-coated drum system was compared to the other six systems (p values <or=0.003). Calculated effective dose varied between 0.010 mSv and 0.032 mSv. Significant differences in contrast-detail performance and effective dose levels were found between different digital chest radiography systems in clinical practice.

Diagnostic radiographic examinations in Saudi Arabia based on thermoluminescent dosimetery

“…Data were recorded at KKUH as mean ± standard error (n = 20 for each radiographic projection). these studies also concluded that flat-panel detectors achieved the best results in low-exposure imaging, followed by other DR systems such as selenium drum and CCD-based systems (Veldkamp et al, 2006;Kroft et al, 2005). A lack of implemented local/national recommendations may be another possible cause.…”

Two K versus 4 K storage phosphor chest radiography: detection performance and image quality

“…Other authors, however, concluded that 2-K hardcopy chest radiographs perform equivalently to film if adequate processing is applied [5][6][7][8]10]. Similarly it has been shown in contrast detail phantom studies that detail detectability is described insufficiently by pixel size and spatial resolution alone, but relies on a complex interaction of contrast and spatial resolution more adequately described by the modulation transfer function (MTF; [9,11,16]). …”

NCS Report 17: Dosimetrie in de radiologie: stralingsbelasting van de patiënt en werknemers

“…In [29,36] 0,018 0,004 -0,062 Overzichtsstudie thoraxopname PA [37] 0,015 0,007 -0,036 Thoraxopname PA, digitale toestellen [38] 0,020 0,010 -0,032 Thoraxopname PA [39] 0,020 -Abdomen AP [39] 0,22 -Cervicale wervelkolom (2 projecties) [39] 0,015 -Thoracale wervelkolom (2 projecties) [39] 0,19 -Lumbale wervelkolom [39] 0,43 -Schedel (2 projecties) [39] 0,015 -Bekken AP [39] 0,021 -Extremiteiten [39] < 0,001 -Gedetailleerde informatie over effectieve dosis bij radiologie, waaronder radiografie (handtechniek en bucky-opnamen), is beschikbaar gekomen in het demonstratieproject patiëntendosimetrie [40,41]. Dit project is uitgevoerd door het Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum in een samenwerkingsverband met elf ziekenhuizen.…”