| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Heidelberg, INF 110, 69120
Heidelberg, Germany.
2
Present address: Department of Diagnostic Radiology (E0101), German Cancer
Research Center, Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
OBJECTIVE. The objective of this study was to compare clinical chest radiographs of a large-area, flat-panel digital radiography system and a conventional film-screen radiography system. The comparison was based on an observer preference study of image quality and visibility of anatomic structures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. Routine follow-up chest radiographs were obtained from 100 consecutive oncology patients using a large-area, amorphous silicon flat-panel detector digital radiography system (dose equivalent to a 400-speed film system). Hard-copy images were compared with previous examinations of the same individuals taken on a conventional film-screen system (200-speed). Patients were excluded if changes in the chest anatomy were detected or if the time interval between the examinations exceeded 1 year. Observer preference was evaluated for the image quality and the visibility of 15 anatomic structures using a five-point scale.
RESULTS. Dose measurements with a chest phantom showed a dose
reduction of approximately 50% with the digital radiography system compared
with the film-screen radiography system. The image quality and the visibility
of all but one anatomic structure of the images obtained with the digital
flat-panel detector system were rated significantly superior (p 
0.0003) to those obtained with the conventional film-screen radiography
system.
CONCLUSION. The image quality and visibility of anatomic structures on the images obtained by the flat-panel detector system were perceived as equal or superior to the images from conventional film-screen chest radiography. This was true even though the radiation dose was reduced approximately 50% with the digital flat-panel detector system.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L J M Kroft, W J H Veldkamp, B J A Mertens, J-P A van Delft, and J Geleijns Dose reduction in digital chest radiography and perceived image quality Br. J. Radiol., December 1, 2007; 80(960): 984 - 988. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Korner, C. H. Weber, S. Wirth, K.-J. Pfeifer, M. F. Reiser, and M. Treitl Advances in Digital Radiography: Physical Principles and System Overview RadioGraphics, May 1, 2007; 27(3): 675 - 686. [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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. De Hauwere, K. Bacher, P. Smeets, K. Verstraete, and H. Thierens Analysis of image quality in digital chest imaging Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 1, 2005; 117(1-3): 174 - 177. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
O. W. Hamer, C. B. Sirlin, M. Strotzer, I. Borisch, N. Zorger, S. Feuerbach, and M. Volk Chest Radiography with a Flat-Panel Detector: Image Quality with Dose Reduction after Copper Filtration Radiology, November 1, 2005; 237(2): 691 - 700. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Metz, P. Damoser, R. Hollweck, R. Roggel, C. Engelke, K. Woertler, B. Renger, E. J. Rummeny, and T. M. Link Chest Radiography with a Digital Flat-Panel Detector: Experimental Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis Radiology, March 1, 2005; 234(3): 776 - 784. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. Huda The Current Concept of Speed Should Not Be Used to Describe Digital Imaging Systems Radiology, February 1, 2005; 234(2): 345 - 346. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Fischbach, T. Freund, R. Rottgen, U. Engert, R. Felix, and J. Ricke Dual-Energy Chest Radiography with a Flat-Panel Digital Detector: Revealing Calcified Chest Abnormalities Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2003; 181(6): 1519 - 1524. [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]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
