| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Radiology, Vol 138, 449-454, Copyright © 1981 by Radiological Society of North America
ARTICLES |
JR Haaga, F Miraldi, W MacIntyre, JP LiPuma, PJ Bryan and E Wiesen
The effect of different mAs settings on computed tomobraphy (CT) image quality was evaluated by a clinical study and phantom studies. In the clinical portion of this study, a number of CT images, obtained at various mAs settings, were reviewed by experienced CT interpreters. From these same images, graphs were charted of the root-mean-standard deviation (RMSD) vs. body size; there appeared to be a linear relationship between noise, as measured by RMSD, and body size. A performance phantom was used to evaluate the effect of the different mAs settings on resolution. There was some loss in low contrast resolution at 6 and 20 mAs; however, the resolution was identical at 40 and 100 mAs.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. R. Mayo Radiation Dose Issues in Longitudinal Studies Involving Computed Tomography Proceedings of the ATS, December 15, 2008; 5(9): 934 - 939. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. Hur, S. W. Hong, S. Y. Kim, Y. H. Kim, Y. J. Hwang, W. R. Lee, and S. J. Cha Uniform Image Quality Achieved by Tube Current Modulation Using SD of Attenuation in Coronary CT Angiography Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2007; 189(1): 188 - 196. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. H. McCollough, M. R. Bruesewitz, and J. M. Kofler Jr CT Dose Reduction and Dose Management Tools: Overview of Available Options. RadioGraphics, March 1, 2006; 26(2): 503 - 512. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. H. McCollough Automatic Exposure Control in CT: Are We Done Yet? Radiology, December 1, 2005; 237(3): 755 - 756. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Menke Comparison of Different Body Size Parameters for Individual Dose Adaptation in Body CT of Adults Radiology, August 1, 2005; 236(2): 565 - 571. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Irie and H. Inoue Individual Modulation of the Tube Current-Seconds to Achieve Similar Levels of Image Noise in Contrast-Enhanced Abdominal CT Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2005; 184(5): 1514 - 1518. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. M. Maher, P. F. Hahn, D. A. Gervais, B. Seoighe, J. B. Ravenscroft, and P. R. Mueller Portable Abdominal CT: Analysis of Quality and Clinical Impact in More Than 100 Consecutive Cases Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2004; 183(3): 663 - 670. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A J Britten, M Crotty, H Kiremidjian, A Grundy, and E J Adam The addition of computer simulated noise to investigate radiation dose and image quality in images with spatial correlation of statistical noise: an example application to X-ray CT of the brain Br. J. Radiol., April 1, 2004; 77(916): 323 - 328. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. K. Kalra, M. M. Maher, T. L. Toth, L. M. Hamberg, M. A. Blake, J.-A. Shepard, and S. Saini Strategies for CT Radiation Dose Optimization Radiology, March 1, 2004; 230(3): 619 - 628. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. R. Mayo, J. Aldrich, and N. L. Muller Radiation Exposure at Chest CT: A Statement of the Fleischner Society Radiology, July 1, 2003; 228(1): 15 - 21. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. K. Kalra, S. Prasad, S. Saini, M. A. Blake, J. Varghese, E. F. Halpern, J. T. Rhea, and J. H. Thrall Clinical Comparison of Standard-Dose and 50% Reduced--Dose Abdominal CT: Effect on Image Quality Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2002; 179(5): 1101 - 1106. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Itoh, M. Ikeda, Y. Mori, K. Suzuki, A. Sawaki, S. Iwano, H. Satake, S. Arahata, T. Isomura, M. Ozaki, et al. Lung: Feasibility of a Method for Changing Tube Current during Low-Dose Helical CT Radiology, September 1, 2002; 224(3): 905 - 912. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
O. Honda, T. Johkoh, N. Tomiyama, T. Kozuka, N. Mihara, M. Koyama, S. Hamada, H. Naito, H. Nakamura, and M. Kudo High-Resolution CT Using Multidetector CT Equipment: Evaluation of Image Quality in 11 Cadaveric Lungs and a Phantom Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2001; 177(4): 875 - 879. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. F. Rogers Radiation Exposure in CT: Why So High? Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2001; 177(2): 277 - 277. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. R. Haaga Radiation Dose Management: Weighing Risk Versus Benefit Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2001; 177(2): 289 - 291. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. Huda, E. M. Scalzetti, and G. Levin Technique Factors and Image Quality as Functions of Patient Weight at Abdominal CT Radiology, November 1, 2000; 217(2): 430 - 435. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Cohnen, H. Fischer, J. Hamacher, E. Lins, R. Kötter, and U. Mödder CT of the Head by Use of Reduced Current and Kilovoltage: Relationship between Image Quality and Dose Reduction AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., October 1, 2000; 21(9): 1654 - 1660. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Itoh, M. Ikeda, S. Arahata, T. Kodaira, T. Isomura, T. Kato, K. Yamakawa, K. Maruyama, and T. Ishigaki Lung Cancer Screening: Minimum Tube Current Required for Helical CT Radiology, April 1, 2000; 215(1): 175 - 183. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
