American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 172, 177-184, Copyright © 1999 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Selenium-based digital radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography of the hands and feet: a subjective comparison

DW Piraino, WJ Davros, M Lieber, BJ Richmond, JP Schils, MP Recht, PN Grooff and GH Belhobek
Department of Radiology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, OH 44195, USA.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to subjectively compare the visibility of normal anatomy of the hands and feet using selenium-based digital radiography versus conventional film-screen (100-speed) radiography. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Digital and film-screen images of the hands and feet of 24 patients were obtained without an antiscatter grid using identical X-ray exposure. Each pair of images was evaluated independently by five experienced radiologists for visibility of normal anatomy using a six-point rating scale. Soft tissues, cortical bone, and trabeculae were evaluated. For each observer, "equivalence" was defined as a mean difference in image quality of less than 1 unit on the 0-5 scale used in the study. Paired t tests were also performed to determine whether the average visibility rating of one technique was statistically superior to that of the other at a .05 level of significance for each observer and at each anatomic landmark. RESULTS: In all categories, selenium-based digital images were rated equivalent to film-screen images by the five observers. Using the sum of the nine landmarks, four of the five observers rated the quality of selenium- based digital images superior to that of film-screen images. CONCLUSION: Subjective visibility of normal anatomy of the hands and feet using selenium-based digital radiography was similar to that achieved using conventional film-screen radiography.
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G J Bansal Digital radiography. A comparison with modern conventional imaging. Postgrad. Med. J., July 1, 2006; 82(969): 425 - 428. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. BRINDHABAN and K. AL KHALIFAH Radiation Dose in Pelvic Imaging Radiol. Technol., September 1, 2005; 77(1): 32 - 40. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S Chapman Non-accidental injury Imaging, December 1, 2004; 16(2): 161 - 173. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. S. Kim, J.-G. Im, J. M. Goo, K. H. Lee, Y.-J. Lee, S. H. Kim, and S. Kim Detection of Pulmonary Edema in Pigs: Storage Phosphor versus Amorphous Selenium-based Flat-Panel-Detector Radiography Radiology, June 1, 2002; 223(3): 695 - 701. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Awai, M. Komi, and S. Hori Selenium-Based Digital Radiography Versus High-Resolution Storage Phosphor Radiography in the Detection of Solitary Pulmonary Nodules Without Calcification: Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve Analysis Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2001; 177(5): 1141 - 1144. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Y. Kim, K. S. Cho, K.-S. Song, J. H. Kim, J.-G. Kim, and H. K. Ha Urinary Calculi on Computed Radiography: Comparison of Observer Performance with Hard-Copy Versus Soft-Copy Images on Different Viewer Systems Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2001; 177(2): 331 - 335. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M. Goo, J.-G. Im, J. H. Kim, J. B. Seo, T. S. Kim, S. J. Shine, and W. Lee Digital Chest Radiography with a Selenium-Based Flat-Panel Detector Versus a Storage Phosphor System: Comparison of Soft-Copy Images Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2000; 175(4): 1013 - 1018. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]