Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Niklason, L. T.
Right arrow Articles by Mathews, J. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Niklason, L. T.
Right arrow Articles by Mathews, J. F.

Radiology, Vol 186, 387-393, Copyright © 1993 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Portable chest imaging: comparison of storage phosphor digital, asymmetric screen-film, and conventional screen-film systems

LT Niklason, HP Chan, PN Cascade, CL Chang, PW Chee and JF Mathews
Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Hospitals, Ann Arbor.

The quality of chest images obtained with portable radiography was evaluated for a conventional screen-film system, a new asymmetric screen-film chest system, and computed radiography (CR). Sixty chest images were obtained in 20 patients in an intensive care unit. The CR system was ranked by all three evaluating radiologists as substantially better in overall diagnostic quality, interpretability of the lungs, and musculoskeletal detail and by two of the three observers as better for the visibility of catheters and lines. In the upper abdomen and mediastinum, there was not a clear preference. Standard deviations of film density were +/- 0.12, +/- 0.41, and +/- 0.39 for the CR, conventional, and asymmetric systems, respectively. For the same systems, phantom results indicated the relative lung contrast values were 1.2, 1.0, and 0.89, respectively. Similarly, the limiting resolution values in the lung were 2.0, 4.2, and 6.3 line pairs per millimeter. The CR system had twice the root-mean-square noise of the screen-film systems. Overall, the preferred system for portable chest imaging was the CR system.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
S. Mazzocchi, G. Belli, S. Busoni, C. Gori, I. Menchi, P. Salucci, A. Taddeucci, and G. Zatelli
AEC set-up optimisation with computed radiography imaging
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 1, 2005; 117(1-3): 169 - 173.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
E. Eisenhuber, A. Stadler, M. Prokop, M. Fuchsjager, M. Weber, and C. Schaefer-Prokop
Detection of Monitoring Materials on Bedside Chest Radiographs with the Most Recent Generation of Storage Phosphor Plates: Dose Increase Does Not Improve Detection Performance
Radiology, April 1, 2003; 227(1): 216 - 221.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
K. Ludwig, T. M. Link, M. Fiebich, B. Renger, S. Diederich, M. Oelerich, H. Lenzen, and W. Heindel
Selenium-based Digital Radiography in the Detection of Bone Lesions: Preliminary Experience with Experimentally Created Defects
Radiology, July 1, 2000; 216(1): 220 - 224.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1993 by the Radiological Society of North America.