HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kroft, L. J. M. Articles by Geleijns, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kroft, L. J. M. Articles by Geleijns, J. Social Bookmarking                      What's this? Hotlight (NEW!) What's Hotlight?

Comparison of Eight Different Digital Chest Radiography Systems: Variation in Detection of Simulated Chest Disease

¹ Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, Leiden, The Netherlands 2333 ZA.
² Department of Medical Statistics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands 2333 ZA.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. In a short period, a variety of technically different digital radiography chest systems have become available for clinical use. Our purpose was to assess the diagnostic performance of eight different digital radiography chest systems for detection of simulated chest disease under clinical conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. Assessed were four different flat-panel detector systems, two different charge-coupled device systems, one selenium-coated drum, and one storage phosphor system. For each system, 10 chest images of an anthropomorphic chest phantom were obtained. Each image contained one to 12 simulated chest lesions. Eight radiologists performed soft-copy interpretations. Entrance dose was measured and effective dose calculated. A semiparametric logistic regression model was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS. Statistically significant differences were found in the diagnostic performance of the eight digital chest systems (p = 0.01). Best performance was observed with the charge-coupled device system with slot-scan technology, yielding a sensitivity of 46% (132 of 288) lesions detected. The performance of three flat-panel detectors and the selenium-drum system was not significantly different from the slot-scan charge-coupled device system. Fewer lesions were detected with the storage phosphor system than with all other digital technologies, with a sensitivity of 34% (99 of 288) lesions detected, slot-scan charge-coupled device system versus storage phosphor system, p < 0.001. The effective dose varied among the digital systems.

CONCLUSION. We found differences in diagnostic performance among the eight different digital chest systems. Differences in detection rates are predominantly explained by detector design.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. A. Mettler Jr, W. Huda, T. T. Yoshizumi, and M. Mahesh Effective Doses in Radiology and Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine: A Catalog Radiology, July 1, 2008; 248(1): 254 - 263. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				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]