| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1
Department of Clinical Radiology, Staedtische Kliniken Dortmund, Beurhausstra. 40, 44137 Dortmund, Germany.
2
Computing Center and Department of Statistics, University of Dortmund, August-Schmidt-Stra. 12, 44221 Dortmund, Germany.
OBJECTIVE. The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of a digital large-area silicon flat-panel detector with that of a conventional screen-film system in clinical chest imaging using abnormal findings documented by CT as the reference standard.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Eighty patients (46 men and 34 women; age range, 18-91 years; mean age, 63 years) who underwent CT of the chest were examined with the new digital radiography system, which is based on a 43 x 43 cm silicon flat-panel detector, and with a conventional screen-film system, which is used routinely in clinical practice. Posteroanterior and lateral radiographs were obtained. Four radiologists analyzed the digital and conventional images separately for chest abnormalities and rated the images using a five-level scale of confidence; CT was used as the reference standard. Diagnostic value was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves for each abnormality.
RESULTS. No significant differences were found between the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the digital and that of the conventional radiography method for almost all investigated criteria. The only exception was mediastinal abnormalities, for which the digital method provided better results than the conventional method (p <<0.05).
CONCLUSION. The diagnostic performance of the new large-area silicon flat-panel detector is equivalent or superior to that of the conventional screen-film system for clinical chest imaging and can replace conventional radiography systems. This new technology offers transmission and storage possibilities inherent to digital radiology that would facilitate daily practice and reduce the initial high costs in the long-term.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Wirth, M. Treitl, M. F. Reiser, and M. Korner Imaging Performance with Different Doses in Skeletal Radiography: Comparison of a Needle-structured and a Conventional Storage Phosphor System with a Flat-Panel Detector Radiology, January 1, 2009; 250(1): 152 - 160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Y. Hatakeyama, S. Kakeda, N. Ohnari, J. Moriya, N. Oda, K. Nishino, W. Miyamoto, and Y. Korogi Reduction of Radiation Dose for Cerebral Angiography Using Flat Panel Detector of Direct Conversion Type: A Vascular Phantom Study AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., April 1, 2007; 28(4): 645 - 650. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. J. M. Kroft, W. J. H. Veldkamp, B. J. A. Mertens, J. P. A. van Delft, and J. Geleijns Detection of simulated nodules on clinical radiographs: dose reduction at digital posteroanterior chest radiography. Radiology, November 1, 2006; 241(2): 392 - 398. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Bacher, P. Smeets, L. Vereecken, A. De Hauwere, P. Duyck, R. De Man, K. Verstraete, and H. Thierens Image quality and radiation dose on digital chest imaging: comparison of amorphous silicon and amorphous selenium flat-panel systems. Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2006; 187(3): 630 - 637. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 V. Neofotistou, V. Tsapaki, S. Kottou, A. Schreiner-Karoussou, and E. Vano Does digital imaging decrease patient dose? A pilot study and review of the literature Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 1, 2005; 117(1-3): 204 - 210. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S Chapman Non-accidental injury Imaging, December 1, 2004; 16(2): 161 - 173. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. J. M. Kroft, J. Geleijns, B. J. A. Mertens, W. J. H. Veldkamp, H. M. Zonderland, and A. de Roos Digital Slot-Scan Charge-coupled Device Radiography versus AMBER and Bucky Screen-Film Radiography for Detection of Simulated Nodules and Interstitial Disease in a Chest Phantom Radiology, April 1, 2004; 231(1): 156 - 163. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Bacher, P. Smeets, K. Bonnarens, An De Hauwere, K. Verstraete, and H. Thierens Dose Reduction in Patients Undergoing Chest Imaging: Digital Amorphous Silicon Flat-Panel Detector Radiography Versus Conventional Film-Screen Radiography and Phosphor-Based Computed Radiography Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2003; 181(4): 923 - 929. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Ludwig, K. Ahlers, D. Wormanns, M. Freund, T. M. Bernhardt, S. Diederich, and W. Heindel Lumbar Spine Radiography: Digital Flat-Panel Detector versus Screen-Film and Storage-Phosphor Systems in Monkeys as a Pediatric Model Radiology, October 1, 2003; 229(1): 140 - 144. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Ganten, B. Radeleff, A. Kampschulte, M. D. Daniels, G. W. Kauffmann, and J. Hansmann Comparing Image Quality of Flat-Panel Chest Radiography with Storage Phosphor Radiography and Film-Screen Radiography Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2003; 181(1): 171 - 176. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Ludwig, C. Schulke, S. Diederich, D. Wormanns, H. Lenzen, T. M. Bernhardt, P. Brinckmann, and W. Heindel Detection of Subtle Undisplaced Rib Fractures in a Porcine Model: Radiation Dose Requirement--Digital Flat-Panel versus Screen-Film and Storage-Phosphor Systems Radiology, April 1, 2003; 227(1): 163 - 168. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Fink, P. J. Hallscheidt, G. Noeldge, A. Kampschulte, B. Radeleff, W. P. Hosch, G. W. Kauffmann, and J. Hansmann Clinical Comparative Study with a Large-Area Amorphous Silicon Flat-Panel Detector: Image Quality and Visibility of Anatomic Structures on Chest Radiography Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2002; 178(2): 481 - 486. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Ludwig, H. Lenzen, K.-F. Kamm, T. M. Link, S. Diederich, D. Wormanns, and W. Heindel Performance of a Flat-Panel Detector in Detecting Artificial Bone Lesions: Comparison with Conventional Screen-Film and Storage-Phosphor Radiography Radiology, February 1, 2002; 222(2): 453 - 459. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
