PURPOSE: To evaluate the image quality and performance of a chest digital radiography system and to compare this with the image quality and performance of advanced multiple-beam equalization radiography (AMBER) and Bucky screen-film radiography systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The chest digital radiography system is a digital charge-coupled device (CCD) chest imaging unit that uses slot-scan technology. A contrast-detail test object was used in combination with a phantom that simulates the primary and scatter transmission for the lungs and mediastinum. Twelve phantom images were obtained with each modality (ie, CCD digital radiography and AMBER and Bucky screen-film radiography) and were judged by six observers. CCD digital radiography soft-copy reading was compared with AMBER hard-copy reading. To measure image quality, contrast-detail curves were constructed from the observer data. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: For the lung configuration, contrast-detail curves showed lower threshold depth for hard-copy images obtained with CCD digital radiography than for those obtained with Bucky screen-film radiography. For hard-copy images, the difference between contrast-detail curves for CCD digital radiography and those for Bucky screen-film radiography was statistically significant (P < .006). No significant difference was found between CCD digital radiography and AMBER for hard-copy images obtained in either the lung or mediastinum configuration. For the lung configuration, a lower threshold depth was observed for CCD digital radiography soft-copy reading than for AMBER hard-copy reading, with significantly different contrast-detail curves for CCD digital radiography soft copy and AMBER hard copy (P < .006). No significant difference was found between either system for the mediastinum configuration. CONCLUSION: Contrast-detail curves indicate that image quality for the CCD chest system provides a digital alternative to AMBER and Bucky screen-film radiography. Copyright RSNA, 2005.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the image quality and performance of a chest digital radiography system and to compare this with the image quality and performance of advanced multiple-beam equalization radiography (AMBER) and Bucky screen-film radiography systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The chest digital radiography system is a digital charge-coupled device (CCD) chest imaging unit that uses slot-scan technology. A contrast-detail test object was used in combination with a phantom that simulates the primary and scatter transmission for the lungs and mediastinum. Twelve phantom images were obtained with each modality (ie, CCD digital radiography and AMBER and Bucky screen-film radiography) and were judged by six observers. CCD digital radiography soft-copy reading was compared with AMBER hard-copy reading. To measure image quality, contrast-detail curves were constructed from the observer data. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: For the lung configuration, contrast-detail curves showed lower threshold depth for hard-copy images obtained with CCD digital radiography than for those obtained with Bucky screen-film radiography. For hard-copy images, the difference between contrast-detail curves for CCD digital radiography and those for Bucky screen-film radiography was statistically significant (P < .006). No significant difference was found between CCD digital radiography and AMBER for hard-copy images obtained in either the lung or mediastinum configuration. For the lung configuration, a lower threshold depth was observed for CCD digital radiography soft-copy reading than for AMBER hard-copy reading, with significantly different contrast-detail curves for CCD digital radiography soft copy and AMBER hard copy (P < .006). No significant difference was found between either system for the mediastinum configuration. CONCLUSION: Contrast-detail curves indicate that image quality for the CCD chest system provides a digital alternative to AMBER and Bucky screen-film radiography. Copyright RSNA, 2005.
Authors: Xinming Liu; Chris C Shaw; Chao-Jen Lai; Mustafa C Altunbas; Lingyun Chen; Tao Han; Tianpeng Wang Journal: Med Phys Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 4.071