Hand radiographs: a comparative study of digital luminescent radiography (DLR) and conventional screen-film system combinations

Krug, Barbara; Fischbach, Roman; Dölken, W.; Harnischmacher, Urs

doi:10.1007/bf00606452

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Contrary to the situation in osteosynthesis, where edge artifacts hinder the assessment of inflammation and metal loosening by extinguishing the neighboring spongiosa (13,22), edge artifacts did not impair diagnostic information in abdominal contrast medium studies. This can be explained by the fact that the contour of the contrasted organs (rather than the surrounding soft tissues, which are nonvisualized by the artifact) is of diagnostic relevance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…Contrary to edge-enhanced digital examinations of the large joints and the hands, soft-tissue lines like the psoas margins could not be better delineated using HFE (13,22). This is due to the comparatively gross imaging anatomy and to the nature of HFE as projection images.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…While digital radiography has been extensively evaluated with respect to thoracic and musculoskeletal imaging, its applicability to abdominal examinations is still under investigation (1-3, [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]16,17,[20][21][22][23]. Abdominal contrast medium studies are frequently performed and yield comparatively high gonadal doses.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Digital Luminescence Radiography and Conventional Radiography in Abdominal Contrast Examinations

Krug

Harnischmacher²,

Krähe³

et al. 1995

Acta Radiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 326 patients abdominal contrast radiographs were compared to digital luminescence radiographs (DLR) and conventional screen-film system ones. The digital exposure dose was 50% of the conventional. In DLR, 2 different types of postprocessed images were obtained from each data set. A display with low spatial frequency enhancement filtered to look like a conventional radiograph was compared to a display with high spatial frequency enhancement. Conventional and DLR images were evaluated randomly and separately by 4 radiologists by means of a questionnaire. DLR proved to be diagnostically equivalent to the conventional technique with the exception of a slightly diminished visibility of the mucosal pattern. High spatial frequency enhancement did not provide additional diagnostic information and should be dispensed with in abdominal examinations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 69%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Digital Luminescence Radiography and Conventional Radiography in Abdominal Contrast Examinations

Krug

Harnischmacher²,

Krähe³

et al. 1995

Acta Radiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Can we see enough? A comparative study of film-screen vs digital radiographs in small lesions in rheumatoid arthritis

et al. 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of digital radiography in the detection of early very small erosions and joint space narrowing in the hands and feet in rheumatoid arthritis. Fifty-three sets of film-screen and digital radiographs of the same hands and feet with very small and sometimes questionable lesions (possible erosions and cysts) were scored independently two times by four investigators. The percentage of lesions found in exactly the same position for each investigator was calculated. Intra-observer agreement between first and second reading in film-screen radiography was 64-76 % (mean 67 %), and in digital radiographs 60-71 % (mean 64 %). Agreement between film-screen and digital radiographs ranged from 54 to 64 % (mean 58 %) in the first reading and from 56 to 66 % (mean 62 %) in the second reading. Overall agreement between both techniques between first and second reading ranged between 62 and 73 % (mean 65 %). Digital radiography of the hands and feet can be used in patients suspected of rheumatoid arthritis and in follow-up of those patients, because small and early erosions can be seen equally well with the digital technique as compared with the conventional film-screen technique.

show abstract

Clinical experiences with computed radiography

Lindhardt¹

1996

European Journal of Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hand radiographs: a comparative study of digital luminescent radiography (DLR) and conventional screen-film system combinations

Cited by 3 publications

References 16 publications

Digital Luminescence Radiography and Conventional Radiography in Abdominal Contrast Examinations

Digital Luminescence Radiography and Conventional Radiography in Abdominal Contrast Examinations

Can we see enough? A comparative study of film-screen vs digital radiographs in small lesions in rheumatoid arthritis

Clinical experiences with computed radiography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About