Radiography
Volume 13, Issue 2 , Pages 89-94 , May 2007

A comparison of low contrast performance for amorphous Silicon/caesium iodide direct radiography with a computed radiography: A contrast detail phantom study

  • Mark McEntee

      Affiliations

    • Diagnostic Imaging, School of Medicine and Medical Science, UCD Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +353 1 7166356; fax: +353 1 7166547.
    • ,
  • Helena Frawley

      Affiliations

    • Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
    • ,
  • Patrick C. Brennan

      Affiliations

    • Diagnostic Imaging, School of Medicine and Medical Science, UCD Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland

Received 1 September 2005 ,Accepted 2 January 2006.

References 

  1. Chotas H, Dobbins J, Ravin C. Principles of digital radiography with large area electronically readable detectors: a review of basics. Radiology. 1999;210:595–599
  2. Aufrichtig R, Xue P. Dose efficiency and low contrast detectability of an amorphous silicon X-ray detector for digital radiography. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2000;45:2653–2669
  3. Floyd C, Warp K, Dobbins J, Chotas H, Baydush A, Vargas-Voracek R, et al. Imaging characteristics of an amorphous silicon flat panel detector for digital chest radiography. Radiology. 2001;218:683–688
  4. Sanfridsson J, Holje G. Radiation dose and image information in computed radiography. Acta Radiologica. 2000;41:310–316
  5. Yaffe M, Rowlands J. X-ray detectors for digital radiography. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 1997;42:1–39
  6. Workman A, Cowen A. Improved image quality utilizing dual plate computed radiography. The British Journal of Radiology. 1995;68:182–188
  7. Granfors P. Performance characteristics of an amorphous silicon flat panel X-ray imaging detector. Proceedings of SPIE. 1999;3659:480–490
  8. Bogucki T, Trauernicht D, Kocher T. Characteristics of a storage phosphor system for medical imaging. Technical and scientific monograph. Kodak Health Sciences; 1995;
  9. Bosmans H, Carton AK, Pauwels H, Deprez T, Marchal G. The assessment of dose and image quality of storage phosphor systems: an overview of the different tasks. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2001;94:77–81
  10. Thijssen M, Bijkerk K, van der Burght R. Manual CD RAD phantom type 2.0: project in quality assurance in radiology. Section Clinical Physics, Department of Radiology, University hospital Nijmegen, St. Radboud, American Association of Physics in Medicine; 1998;
  11. Peer S, Neitzel U, Giacomuzzi S, Gassner E, Steinberg I, Jaschke W. Comparison of low contrast detail perception on storage phosphor radiographs and digital flat panel detector images. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. 2001;20:239–242
  12. Thijssen M, Thijssen H, Merx J, Lindeijer J, Bijkerk K. A definition of image quality: the image quality figure. Report of the British Institute of Radiology. vol. 20. 1989;p. 29–34
  13. AAPM Task Group #10. Acceptance testing and quality control of photostimulable storage phosphor imaging systems. Version 4, 1998; vol. 1. p. 1–80.
  14. Samei E, Seibert J, Willis C, Flynn M, Mah E, Junck K. Performance evaluation of computed radiography systems. Medical Physics. 2001;28:361–371
  15. Geijer H, Beckman K, Andersson T, Perliden J. Image quality vs radiation dose for a flat-panel amorphous silicon detector: a phantom study. European Radiology. 2001;11:1704–1709
  16. Aufrichtig R. Comparison of low contrast detectability between digital amorphous silicon and a screen–film based imaging system for thoracic radiography. Medical Physics. 1999;26:1349–1358
  17. Mansson LG. Methods for the evaluation of image quality: a review. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2000;90:89–99
  18. CEC (Commission of the European Communities) . European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. EUR 16260 EN In:  Carmicheal JHE,  Maccia C,  Moores BM,  Oestmann JW,  Schibilla H,  Teunen D,  Tiggelen RV,  Wall B editor. Brussels: CEC; 1996;
  19. Daly LE, Bourke GJ. Interpretation and use of medical statistics. 5th ed.. Blackwell Science; 2000;p. 203–224
  20. McClave J, Dietrich F, Sincich T. Statistics. 7th ed.. Prentice Hall; 1997;p. 29–35, 296–300, 308–13, 341–51, 359–66 & 413–7
  21. Rong XJ, Shaw CC, Liu X, Lemacks XL, Thompson SK. Comparison of an amorphous silicon/caesium iodide flat panel digital chest radiography system with screen/film and computed radiography systems – a contrast detail phantom study. Medical Physics. 2001;28(11):2328–2335
  22. Aufrichtig R. Comparison of low contrast detectability between a digital amorphous Silicon and the screen film based imaging system for thoracic radiography. Medical Physics. 1999;26(7):1349–1358
  23. Volk M, Strotzer M, Holznecht N, Manke C, Lenhart M, Gmeinweiser J, et al. Digital radiography of the skeleton using a large area detector based on amorphous silicon technology: image quality and potential for dose reduction in comparison with screen film radiography. Clinical Radiology. 2000;55:615–621

PII: S1078-8174(06)00005-8

doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2006.01.004

Radiography
Volume 13, Issue 2 , Pages 89-94 , May 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution