Literature DB >> 22986575

[Dose reduction and adequate image quality in digital radiography: a contradiction?].

S Pötter-Lang1, M Dünkelmeyer, M Uffmann.   

Abstract

CLINICAL/METHODICAL ISSUE: Dose reduction and adequate image quality in digital radiography - a contradiction? STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL
METHODS: Digital radiography has already replaced traditional screen-film systems. METHODICAL INNOVATIONS: Substantial improvements in both dose efficiency and spatial resolution demonstrate the rapid developments in digital radiography. PERFORMANCE: Needle-detector systems have shown up to a 50% dose reduction compared to traditional screen-film systems. There is also a dose reduction capability of up to 50% comparing direct radiography (DR) systems to computed radiography (CR) systems for chest X-rays. However, despite the most recent achievements of CR technology, the dose efficiency of DR systems (caesium iodide flat-panel detector) is unparalleled. ACHIEVEMENTS: The progress in detector technology has contributed to dose reduction and improved image quality, while saving time and providing a higher examination rate. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: The use of dose indicators and longitudinal dose control are important to avoid substantial accidental dose increase. The dose applied to patients should fall markedly below the defined diagnostic reference levels within the European Union. Regular quality control, as well as continuous education and training of medical and technical personnel, contribute to ensure that the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle is consistently followed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22986575     DOI: 10.1007/s00117-012-2337-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiologe        ISSN: 0033-832X            Impact factor:   0.635


  33 in total

1.  Subjective perception of radiation risk.

Authors:  Lutz S Freudenberg; Thomas Beyer
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 10.057

2.  Image-quality perception as a function of dose in digital radiography.

Authors:  Thomas Lehnert; Nagy N N Naguib; Huedayi Korkusuz; Ralf W Bauer; J Matthias Kerl; Martin G Mack; Thomas J Vogl
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 3.  [Radiation hygiene in medical X-ray imaging: part 2: Assessment of radiation exposure and radiation protection measures].

Authors:  G Brix; R Veit; U Häusler
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 0.635

4.  The current concept of speed should not be used to describe digital imaging systems.

Authors:  Walter Huda
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 5.  Advances in digital radiography: physical principles and system overview.

Authors:  Markus Körner; Christof H Weber; Stefan Wirth; Klaus-Jürgen Pfeifer; Maximilian F Reiser; Marcus Treitl
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2007 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.333

Review 6.  Dose and perceived image quality in chest radiography.

Authors:  Wouter J H Veldkamp; Lucia J M Kroft; Jacob Geleijns
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2009-07-03       Impact factor: 3.528

7.  Small lung cancers: improved detection by use of bone suppression imaging--comparison with dual-energy subtraction chest radiography.

Authors:  Feng Li; Roger Engelmann; Lorenzo L Pesce; Kunio Doi; Charles E Metz; Heber Macmahon
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-09-23       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Chest radiography with a flat-panel detector: image quality with dose reduction after copper filtration.

Authors:  Okka W Hamer; Claude B Sirlin; Michael Strotzer; Ingitha Borisch; Niels Zorger; Stefan Feuerbach; Markus Völk
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2005-09-28       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Comparison of doses for bedside examinations of the chest with conventional screen-film and computed radiography: results of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  G C Weatherburn; S Bryan; J G Davies
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography.

Authors:  Klaus Bacher; Peter Smeets; Kris Bonnarens; An De Hauwere; Koenraad Verstraete; Hubert Thierens
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  1 in total

1.  [The future of bedside chest radiography: Comparative study of mobile flat-panels and needle-image plate storage phosphor systems].

Authors:  K Bremicker; D Gosch; T Kahn; G Borte
Journal:  Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed       Date:  2015-04-24       Impact factor: 0.840

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.