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


     

Published online before print April 21, 2005, 10.1148/radiol.2353031919
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2353031919v1
235/3/857    most recent
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
Right arrow Citation Map
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 Veldkamp, W. J. H.
Right arrow Articles by Geleijns, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Veldkamp, W. J. H.
Right arrow Articles by Geleijns, J.
(Radiology 2005;235:857-866.)
© RSNA, 2005

Experimental Studies

Digital Slot-Scan Charge-coupled Device Radiography versus AMBER and Bucky Screen-Film Radiography: Comparison of Image Quality in a Phantom Study1

Wouter J. H. Veldkamp, PhD, Lucia J. M. Kroft, MD, PhD, Bart J. A. Mertens, PhD and Jacob Geleijns, PhD

1 From the Departments of Radiology (W.J.H.V., L.J.M.K., J.G.) and Medical Statistics (B.J.A.M.), C2S, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, the Netherlands. Received November 26, 2003; revision requested February 10, 2004; final revision received July 14; accepted August 26. Address correspondence to W.J.H.V. (e-mail: w.j.h.veldkamp@lumc.nl).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the image quality and performance of a chest digital radiography system and to compare this with the image quality and performance of advanced multiple-beam equalization radiography (AMBER) and Bucky screen-film radiography systems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The chest digital radiography system is a digital charge-coupled device (CCD) chest imaging unit that uses slot-scan technology. A contrast-detail test object was used in combination with a phantom that simulates the primary and scatter transmission for the lungs and mediastinum. Twelve phantom images were obtained with each modality (ie, CCD digital radiography and AMBER and Bucky screen-film radiography) and were judged by six observers. CCD digital radiography soft-copy reading was compared with AMBER hard-copy reading. To measure image quality, contrast-detail curves were constructed from the observer data. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS: For the lung configuration, contrast-detail curves showed lower threshold depth for hard-copy images obtained with CCD digital radiography than for those obtained with Bucky screen-film radiography. For hard-copy images, the difference between contrast-detail curves for CCD digital radiography and those for Bucky screen-film radiography was statistically significant (P < .006). No significant difference was found between CCD digital radiography and AMBER for hard-copy images obtained in either the lung or mediastinum configuration. For the lung configuration, a lower threshold depth was observed for CCD digital radiography soft-copy reading than for AMBER hard-copy reading, with significantly different contrast-detail curves for CCD digital radiography soft copy and AMBER hard copy (P < .006). No significant difference was found between either system for the mediastinum configuration.

CONCLUSION: Contrast-detail curves indicate that image quality for the CCD chest system provides a digital alternative to AMBER and Bucky screen-film radiography.

© RSNA, 2005




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br. J. Radiol.Home page
L J M Kroft, W J H Veldkamp, B J A Mertens, J-P A van Delft, and J Geleijns
Dose reduction in digital chest radiography and perceived image quality
Br. J. Radiol., December 1, 2007; 80(960): 984 - 988.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
S. Suryanarayanan, A. Karellas, S. Vedantham, I. Sechopoulos, and C. J. D'Orsi
Detection of Simulated Microcalcifications in a Phantom with Digital Mammography: Effect of Pixel Size
Radiology, July 1, 2007; 244(1): 130 - 137.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
M. Korner, C. H. Weber, S. Wirth, K.-J. Pfeifer, M. F. Reiser, and M. Treitl
Advances in Digital Radiography: Physical Principles and System Overview
RadioGraphics, May 1, 2007; 27(3): 675 - 686.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
L. J. M. Kroft, W. J. H. Veldkamp, B. J. A. Mertens, J. P. A. van Delft, and J. Geleijns
Detection of simulated nodules on clinical radiographs: dose reduction at digital posteroanterior chest radiography.
Radiology, November 1, 2006; 241(2): 392 - 398.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]