AJR ARRS Member Benefits
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
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 Ganten, M.
Right arrow Articles by Hansmann, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ganten, M.
Right arrow Articles by Hansmann, J.
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?
AJR 2003; 181:171-176
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Comparing Image Quality of Flat-Panel Chest Radiography with Storage Phosphor Radiography and Film-Screen Radiography

Marika Ganten1, Boris Radeleff, Annette Kampschulte, Mark D. Daniels, Günter W. Kauffmann and Jochen Hansmann

1 All authors: Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Ruprecht-Karls-University of Heidelberg, Radiological University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.

OBJECTIVE. To evaluate image quality of a large-area direct-readout flat-panel detector system in chest radiography, we conducted an observer preference study. A clinical comparative study was conducted of the flat-panel system versus the storage phosphor and standard film-screen systems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. Routine chest radiographs (posteroanterior) of 30 patients that were obtained using flat-panel, storage phosphor, and film screen systems were compared. The visibility of 10 anatomic regions and the overall image quality criteria were rated independently by three radiologists using a 5-point scale. The significance of the differences in diagnostic performance was tested with a Wilcoxon's signed rank test. Dose measurements for the three modalities were performed.

RESULTS. The flat-panel radiography system showed an improved visibility in most anatomic structures when compared with a state-of-the-art conventional film-screen system and an equal visibility when compared with a storage phosphor system. The flat-panel system showed the greatest enhancement in the depiction of small detailed structures (p < 0.05) and achieved this with a reduction in overall radiation dose of more than 50%.

CONCLUSION. The visibility of anatomic structures provided by this flat-panel detector system is as good as if not better than that provided by conventional or storage phosphor systems while emitting a reduced radiation dose.


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
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
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]


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
C S Moore, G P Liney, A W Beavis, and J R Saunderson
A method to optimize the processing algorithm of a computed radiography system for chest radiography
Br. J. Radiol., September 1, 2007; 80(957): 724 - 730.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadioGraphicsHome page
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]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
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]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
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]


Home page
Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
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]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
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]


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


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
L. J. M. Kroft, W. J. H. Veldkamp, B. J. A. Mertens, M. V. Boot, and J. Geleijns
Comparison of Eight Different Digital Chest Radiography Systems: Variation in Detection of Simulated Chest Disease
Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2005; 185(2): 339 - 346.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
I D Honey, A Mackenzie, and D S Evans
Investigation of optimum energies for chest imaging using film-screen and computed radiography
Br. J. Radiol., May 1, 2005; 78(929): 422 - 427.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2003 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.