Application of a simple phantom in assessing the effects of dose reduction on image quality in chest radiography

References 

1. Hart D, Hillier M, Wall B. Doses to patients from radiographic and Fluoroscopic X-ray imaging procedures in the UK - 2000 review 2002. Chilton, Didcot.
2. Hart D, Hillier MC, Shrimpton PC, Bungay D. Doses to patients from medical x-ray examinations in the UK: 1995 review 1996. Didcot, Chilton, England.
3. Hart D, Hillier M, Wall B. Doses to patients from radiographic and Fluoroscopic X-ray imaging procedures in the UK - 2005 review 2007. Chilton, Didcot.
4. Brennan PC, McDonnell S, O'Leary D. Increasing film-focus distance (FFD) reduces radiation dose for x-ray examinations. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2004;108(3):263–268
5. Ramanaidu S, Sta Maria RB, Ng KH, George J, Kumar G. Evaluation of radiation dose and image quality following changes to tube potential (kVp) in conventional paediatric chest radiography. Biomed Imaging Intervention J. 2006;2(3):
6. Kroft LJM, Veldkamp WJH, Mertens BJA, Van Delft J-A, Geleijns J. Dose reduction in digital chest radiography and perceived image quality. Br J Radiol. 2007;80(960):984–988
   • CrossRef
7. Bacher K, Smeets P, Bonnarens K, De Hauwere A, Verstraete K, Thierens H. 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. 2003;181(4):923–929
8. Dell MA. Phantoms for diagnostic radiology. Radiat Prot Dosim. 1990;49(1/3):55–57
9. Conway BJ, Butler PF, Duff JE, Fewell TR, Gross RE, Jennings RJ, et al. Beam quality independent attenuation phantom for estimating patient exposure from x-ray automatic exposure controlled chest examinations. Med Phys. 1984;11(6):827–832
   • MEDLINE
   • CrossRef
10. Geleijns J, Schultze Kool LJ, Zoetelief J, Zweers D, Broerse JJ. Image quality and dosimetric aspects of chest x-ray examinations: measurements with various types of phantoms. Radiat Prot Dosim. 1993;49(1/3):83–88
11. Vassileva J. A phantom for dose-image quality optimization in chest radiography. Br J Radiol. 2002;75:837–842
    • MEDLINE
12. White DR. Tissue substitutes in experimental radiation physics. Phys Med Biol. 1978;5(6):467–479
13. Kazerooni EA, Bhalla M, Shepard JO, McLoud TC. Adenosquamous carcinoma of the lung: radiologic appearance. Am J Roentgenol. 1994;163:301–306
14. Wittenberg KH, Swensen SJ, Myers JL. Pulmonary involvement with erdheim-chester disease: radiographic and CT findings. Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:1327–1331
15. Connolly MA. Black, white and shades of gray: common abnormalities in chest radiographs. AACN Clin Issue. 2001;12(2):259–269
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
16. Abiru H, Ashizawa K, Hashimi R, Hayashi K. Normal radiographic anatomy of thoracic structures: analysis of 1000 chest radiographs in Japanese population. Br J Radiol. 2005;78:398–404
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
17. ICRU 1996. Medical imaging. The assessment of image quality. Int Comm for Radiat Units Measurements; 1996.
18. Martin CJ, Sharp PF, Sutton DG. Measurement of image quality in diagnostic radiology. Appl Radiat Isotope. 1999;50(1):21–38
19. Huda W, Ogden KM, Samei E, Scalzetti EM, Lavallee RL, Roskopf ML. Inter-reader variability in alternate forced choice studies. Proc SPIE. 2008;6917:
20. Sharp PF, Chesser RB, Mallard JR. The influence of picture element size on the quality of clinical radionuclide images. Phys Med Biol. 1982;27:913–926
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
21. Nyathi T, Mwale AN, Segone P, Mhlanga SH, Pule ML. Radiographic viewing conditions at Johannesburg Hospital. Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal. 2008;(2):Available http://www.biij.org/2008/2/e17
22. Lau S, Ng K, Abdullah BJJ. Viewing conditions in diagnostic imaging: a survey of selected Malaysian Hospitals. J HK Coll Radiol. 2001;4:264–267
23. Hartmann E, Stieve FE. Quality control of radiographic illuminators and associated viewing equipment. London: British Institute of Radiology; 1989;
24. European Commission . Criteria for acceptability of radiological (including radiotherapy) and nuclear installations. Luxembourg: European Commission; 1997;
25. National Institute of Radiation Hygiene (NIRH) . Report on Nordic Radiation protection co-operation. A quality control Programme for radiodiagnostic equipment: acceptance Tests. National Institute of Radiation Hygiene; 1999;
26. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174
    • MEDLINE
    • CrossRef
27. Beentjes LB, Timmermans CWM. Patient doses in the Netherlands. Radiat Prot Dosim. 1991;36:265–268
28. Guibelalde E, Vano E. Design criteria for and evaluation of Phantoms employed in conventional radiography. Radiat Prot Dosim. 1993;49(1/3):39–46
29. Thompson MA, Hattaway MP, Hall JD, Dowd SB. Principles of Imaging Science and Protection. Philadelphia: W.B Saunders Company; 1994;
30. Sandborg M, Tingberg A, Sund P, McVey G, Dance D, Alm Carlsson G. Demonstration of correlations between physical and clinical image quality measures in chest and lumbar spine radiography. Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society; 2000. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annu Int Conf IEEE, vol. 4:3078–3081.
31. Compagnone G, Baleni MC, Pagan L, Calzolaio FL, Barozzi L, Bergamini C. Comparison of radiation doses to patients undergoing standard radiographic examinations with conventional screen-film radiography, computed radiography and direct digital radiography. Br J Radiol. 2006;79(947):899–904
    • CrossRef