AJR Track the topics, authors and articles important to you
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Buckley, K. M.
Right arrow Articles by Rubens, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Buckley, K. M.
Right arrow Articles by Rubens, J. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 156, 467-470, Copyright © 1991 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Detection of bullous lung disease: conventional radiography vs digital storage phosphor radiography

KM Buckley, CM Schaefer, R Greene, S Agatston, J Fay, HJ Llewellyn, HE Mrose and JR Rubens
Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

The detection of fine linear contours and altered aeration are requirements for the radiologic diagnosis of bullous lung disease and are severe measures of the spatial and contrast resolution of chest imaging systems. We compared plain film radiography with five postprocessing algorithms of storage phosphor digital radiography (2144 x 1744 x 10 bit matrix with 0.2-mm pixel size) in the detection of CT- proved bullous lung disease (35 patients and 25 normal control subjects). Receiver-operating-characteristic analysis of 2160 observations by six interpreters was done to evaluate the observers' performance. By analysis of variance (p less than .05), we found that the default digital algorithm and the three edge-enhancing algorithms of high and medium frequencies performed less well than plain films did, but the differences fell short of statistical significance. Gray- scale reversal was the only digital algorithm that performed significantly less well than plain films did. We conclude that any differences between digital algorithms and plain films in the detection of bullous lung disease were too small to be detected in this study. Any difference between the two methods in providing clinically important, diagnostic information is likely to be insignificant.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. Garmer, S. P. Hennigs, H. J. Jager, F. Schrick, T. van de Loo, A. Jacobs, A. Hanusch, A. Christmann, and K. Mathias
Digital Radiography Versus Conventional Radiography in Chest Imaging: Diagnostic Performance of a Large-Area Silicon Flat-Panel Detector in a Clinical CT-Controlled Study
Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2000; 174(1): 75 - 80.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1991 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.