Skip Navigation

Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2005 114(1-3):240-245; doi:10.1093/rpd/nch509
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
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 ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Geijer, H.
Right arrow Articles by Persliden, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Geijer, H.
Right arrow Articles by Persliden, J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

Varied tube potential with constant effective dose at lumbar spine radiography using a flat-panel digital detector

Håkan Geijer1,* and Jan Persliden2,3

1 Department of Radiology, Örebro University Hospital, SE-701 85 Örebro, Sweden
2 Department of Medical Physics, Örebro University Hospital, SE-701 85 Örebro, Sweden
3 Department of Medicine and Care, Faculty of Health Sciences, Linköping University, SE-581 85 Linköping, Sweden

* Corresponding author: hakan.geijer{at}orebroll.se

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the image quality at different tube potential (kV) settings using anteroposterior lumbar spine radiography as a model. An Alderson phantom was used with a flat-panel detector. The tube potential varied between 48 and 125 kV while the tube charge (mAs) was adjusted to keep an effective dose of 0.11 mSv. Image quality was assessed with a visual grading analysis and with a CDRAD contrast-detail phantom together with a computer program. The VGA showed inferior image quality for the higher kV settings, ≥96 kVwith similar results for the contrast-detail phantom. When keeping the effective dose fixed, it seems beneficial to reduce kV to get the best image quality despite the fact that the mAs is not as high as with automatic exposure. However, this cannot be done with automatic exposure, which is set for a constant detector dose.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
H GEIJER, E NORRMAN, and J PERSLIDEN
Optimizing the tube potential for lumbar spine radiography with a flat-panel digital detector
Br. J. Radiol., January 1, 2009; 82(973): 62 - 68.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Br. J. Radiol.Home page
M Bath and L G Mansson
Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: a non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation
Br. J. Radiol., March 1, 2007; 80(951): 169 - 176.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.