Literature DB >> 15845936

Investigation of optimum energies for chest imaging using film-screen and computed radiography.

I D Honey1, A Mackenzie, D S Evans.   

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to compare the image quality of film-screen (FS) and computed radiography (CR) for adult chest examinations across a range of beam energies. A series of images of the CDRAD threshold contrast detail detection phantom were acquired for a range of tube potential and exposure levels with both CR and FS. The phantom was placed within 9 cm of Perspex to provide attenuation and realistic levels of scatter in the image. Hardcopy images of the phantom were scored from a masked light-box by two scorers. Threshold contrast indices were used to calculate a visibility index (VI). The relationships between dose and image quality for CR and for FS are fundamentally different. The improvements in VIs obtained using CR at 75 kVp and 90 kVp were found to be statistically significant compared with 125 kVp at matched effective dose levels. The relative performance of FS and CR varies as a function of energy owing to the different k-edges of each system. When changing from FS to CR, the use of lower tube potentials may allow image quality to be maintained whilst reducing effective dose. A tube voltage of 90 kVp is indicated by this work, but may require clinical verification.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15845936     DOI: 10.1259/bjr/32912696

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Radiol        ISSN: 0007-1285            Impact factor:   3.039


  9 in total

1.  A method to produce and validate a digitally reconstructed radiograph-based computer simulation for optimisation of chest radiographs acquired with a computed radiography imaging system.

Authors:  C S Moore; G P Liney; A W Beavis; J R Saunderson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  [Balance of required dose and image quality in digital radiography].

Authors:  M Uffmann; C Schaefer-Prokop; U Neitzel
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 0.635

3.  Optimisation of radiological protocols for chest imaging using computed radiography and flat-panel X-ray detectors.

Authors:  G Compagnone; M Casadio Baleni; E Di Nicola; M Valentino; M Benati; L F Calzolaio; N Oberhofer; E Fabbri; S Domenichelli; L Barozzi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2012-10-22       Impact factor: 3.469

4.  Correlation of the clinical and physical image quality in chest radiography for average adults with a computed radiography imaging system.

Authors:  C S Moore; T J Wood; A W Beavis; J R Saunderson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-04-08       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Dependence of radiographic sensitivity of CR imaging plate on X-ray tube voltage.

Authors:  Yoshiyuki Asai; Masanobu Uemura; Masao Matsumoto; Hitoshi Kanamori
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2007-12-11

6.  Use of a digitally reconstructed radiograph-based computer simulation for the optimisation of chest radiographic techniques for computed radiography imaging systems.

Authors:  C S Moore; G Avery; S Balcam; L Needler; A Swift; A W Beavis; J R Saunderson
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2012-01-17       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Initial quality performance results using a phantom to simulate chest computed radiography.

Authors:  Wilbroad Muhogora; Renato Padovani; Peter Msaki
Journal:  J Med Phys       Date:  2011-01

8.  Optimizing imaging quality and radiation dose by the age-dependent setting of tube voltage in pediatric chest digital radiography.

Authors:  Hui Guo; Wen-Ya Liu; Xiao-Ye He; Xiao-Shan Zhou; Qun-Li Zeng; Bai-Yan Li
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 3.500

Review 9.  Digital chest radiography: an update on modern technology, dose containment and control of image quality.

Authors:  Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop; Ulrich Neitzel; Henk W Venema; Martin Uffmann; Mathias Prokop
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-04-23       Impact factor: 5.315

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.