OBJECTIVE: In a short period, a variety of technically different digital radiography chest systems have become available for clinical use. Our purpose was to assess the diagnostic performance of eight different digital radiography chest systems for detection of simulated chest disease under clinical conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Assessed were four different flat-panel detector systems, two different charge-coupled device systems, one selenium-coated drum, and one storage phosphor system. For each system, 10 chest images of an anthropomorphic chest phantom were obtained. Each image contained one to 12 simulated chest lesions. Eight radiologists performed soft-copy interpretations. Entrance dose was measured and effective dose calculated. A semi-parametric logistic regression model was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found in the diagnostic performance of the eight digital chest systems (p = 0.01). Best performance was observed with the charge-coupled device system with slot-scan technology, yielding a sensitivity of 46% (132 of 288) lesions detected. The performance of three flat-panel detectors and the selenium-drum system was not significantly different from the slot-scan charge-coupled device system. Fewer lesions were detected with the storage phosphor system than with all other digital technologies, with a sensitivity of 34% (99 of 288) lesions detected, slot-scan charge-coupled device system versus storage phosphor system, p < 0.001. The effective dose varied among the digital systems. CONCLUSION: We found differences in diagnostic performance among the eight different digital chest systems. Differences in detection rates are predominantly explained by detector design.
OBJECTIVE: In a short period, a variety of technically different digital radiography chest systems have become available for clinical use. Our purpose was to assess the diagnostic performance of eight different digital radiography chest systems for detection of simulated chest disease under clinical conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Assessed were four different flat-panel detector systems, two different charge-coupled device systems, one selenium-coated drum, and one storage phosphor system. For each system, 10 chest images of an anthropomorphic chest phantom were obtained. Each image contained one to 12 simulated chest lesions. Eight radiologists performed soft-copy interpretations. Entrance dose was measured and effective dose calculated. A semi-parametric logistic regression model was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found in the diagnostic performance of the eight digital chest systems (p = 0.01). Best performance was observed with the charge-coupled device system with slot-scan technology, yielding a sensitivity of 46% (132 of 288) lesions detected. The performance of three flat-panel detectors and the selenium-drum system was not significantly different from the slot-scan charge-coupled device system. Fewer lesions were detected with the storage phosphor system than with all other digital technologies, with a sensitivity of 34% (99 of 288) lesions detected, slot-scan charge-coupled device system versus storage phosphor system, p < 0.001. The effective dose varied among the digital systems. CONCLUSION: We found differences in diagnostic performance among the eight different digital chest systems. Differences in detection rates are predominantly explained by detector design.
Authors: William F Sensakovic; M Cody O'Dell; Haley Letter; Nathan Kohler; Baiywo Rop; Jane Cook; Gregory Logsdon; Laura Varich Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2016-08-03
Authors: Kwang Hwi Lee; Jong Won Kwon; Young Cheol Yoon; Sang Hee Choi; Jee Young Jung; Ji Hye Kim; Sang Jun Lee Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2009 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.500