Radiography
Volume 16, Issue 4 , Pages 327-332 , November 2010

A simple phantom study of the effects of dose reduction (by kVp increment) below current dose levels on CR chest image quality

  • N.O. Egbe

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Present address: Department of Radiography, University of Calabar, PMB 1115, Calabar, Nigeria.
    • ,
  • B. Heaton
    • ,
  • P.F. Sharp

Received 28 December 2009 ,Revised 17 May 2010 ,Accepted 18 May 2010.

References 

  1. Lamontagne ND. Will digital edge out film?. Biophotonics International. 2003;10(4):48–53
  2. Rampado O, Isoardi P, Ropolo R. Quantitative assessment of computed radiography quality control parameters. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2006;51(6):1577–1593
  3. Huda W, Rill LN, Bruner AP. Relative speeds of Kodak computed radiography phosphors and screen-film systems. Medical Physics. 1997;24(10):1621–1628
  4. Lu ZF, Nickoloff EL, So JC, Dutta AK. Comparison of computed radiography and film/screen combination using a contrast-detail phantom. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics. 2003;4(1):91–98
  5. Sandborg M, Tindberg A, Ullman G, Dance DR, Alm Carlsson G. Comparison of clinical and physical measures of image quality in chest and pelvis computed radiography at different tube voltages. Medical Physics. 2006;33:4169–4175
  6. Tsalafoutas IA, Blastaris GA, Moutsatsos AS, Chios PS, Efstathopoulos EP. Correlation of image quality with exposure index and processing protocol in a computed radiography system. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2008;130(2):162–171
  7. Sharp PF. Quantifying image quality. Clinical Physics and Physiological Measurements. 1990;11(Suppl. A):21–26
  8. ACR practice guidelines for digital radiography. American College of Radiologists; 2007;
  9. Egbe NO, Heaton B, Sharp PF. Application of a simple phantom in assessing the effects of dose reduction on image quality in chest radiography. Radiography. 2010;16:108–114
  10. Vassileva J. A phantom for dose-image quality optimization in chest radiography. The British Journal of Radiology. 2002;75:837–842
  11. Al Khalifah K, Brindhaban A. Comparison between conventional radiography and digital radiography for various kVp and mAs settings using a pelvic phantom. Radiography. 2004;10:119–125
  12. Rowlands JA. The physics of computed radiography. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2002;47:R123–R166
  13. White DR. Tissue substitutes in experimental radiation physics. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 1978;5(6):467–479
  14. Kazerooni EA, Bhalla M, Shepard JO, McLoud TC. Adenosquamous carcinoma of the lung: radiologic appearance. American Journal of Roentgenology. 1994;163:301–306
  15. Akdeniz B, Grondahl H. Degradation of storage phosphor images due to scanning delay. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2006;35(2):74–77
  16. ICRU . ICRU Report No. 54: medical imaging. The assessment of image quality. International Commission for Radiation Units and Measurements; 1996;
  17. Martin CJ, Sharp PF, Sutton DG. Measurement of image quality in diagnostic radiology. Applied Radiation and Isotopes. 1999;50(1):21–38
  18. Brennan PC, McDonnell S, O’Leary D. Increasing film-focus distance (FFD) reduces radiation dose for x-ray examinations. Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 2004;108(3):263–268
  19. Kroft LJM, Veldkamp WJH, Mertens BJA, Van Delft J-A, Geleijns J. Dose reduction in digital chest radiography and perceived image quality. The British Journal of Radiology. 2007;80(960):984–988
  20. Huda W, Ogden KM, Samei E, Scalzetti EM, Lavallee RL, Roskopf ML. Inter-reader variability in alternate forced choice studies. Proceedings of SPIE. 2008;6917:691711-691711
  21. Oakley J. Digital imaging: a primer for radiographers, radiologists and health care professionals. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2006;
  22. AAPM assessment of display performance for medical imaging systems. Maryland, USA: American Association of Physicists in Medicine; 2005;
  23. Ovsenik M, Farcnik F, Verdenik I. Intra- and inter-examination reliability of intraoral malocclusion assessment. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2007;29:88–94
  24. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174
  25. Workman A, Cowen AR. Signal, noise and SNR transfer properties of computed radiography. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 1993;38:1789–1808
  26. Fetterley KA, Hangiandreou NJ. Effects of the x-ray spectra on the DQE of a computed radiography system. Medical Physics. 2001;28:241–248
  27. Weatherburn GC, Davies JG. Comparison of film, hard copy computed radiography (CR) and soft copy picture archiving and communication (PACS) systems using a contrast detail test object. The British Journal of Radiology. 1999;72:856–863
  28. Dowsett DJ, Kenny PA, Johnston RE. The physics of diagnostic imaging. 2nd ed.. London: Hodder Arnold; 2006;
  29. Cowen A, Workman A, Price J. Physical aspects of photostimulable phosphor computed radiography. The British Journal of Radiology. 1993;66(784):332–345
  30. Martin CJ. Optimisation in general radiography. Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal. 2007;3(2):http://www.biij.org/2007/2/e18Available from
  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. The British Journal of Radiology. 2006;79(947):899–904
  32. Scharitzer M, Prokop M, Weber M, Fuchsjager M, Oschatz E, Schaefer-Prokop C. Detectability of catheters on bedside chest radiographs: comparison between liquid crystal display and high resolution cathode ray tube monitors. Radiology. 2005;234(2):611–616
  33. Park CM, Lee HJ, Goo JM, Han DH, Kim JH, Lim KY, et al. Comparison of observer performance on soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs: high resolution liquid-crystal display monitors versus cathode-ray tube monitors. European Journal of Radiology. 2008;66(1):13–18

PII: S1078-8174(10)00053-2

doi: 10.1016/j.radi.2010.05.004

Radiography
Volume 16, Issue 4 , Pages 327-332 , November 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution