Skip Navigation


Radiation Protection Dosimetry Advance Access originally published online on February 3, 2006
Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2005 117(1-3):34-37; doi:10.1093/rpd/nci708
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
117/1-3/34    most recent
nci708v2
nci708v1
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 arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Walsh, C.
Right arrow Articles by Malone, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Walsh, C.
Right arrow Articles by Malone, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Subjective and objective measures of image quality in digital fluoroscopy

C. Walsh1,*, A. Dowling1, A. Meade2 and J. Malone1

1 Department of Medical Physics and Bio-Engineering, St James's Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland
2 Physics Department, DIT, Kevin Street, Dublin 8, Ireland

* Corresponding author: clwalsh{at}stjames.ie

There are numerous methods for assessing image quality in diagnostic X ray. In our study we assessed how imaging quality assurance methods perform in practice. Physics assessments were based on IPEM protocols using Leeds test objects. Clinical assessment was based on a questionnaire. A total of 15 systems in three European locations were assessed, covering a range of image intensifier-TV digital fluoroscopy units. Analysis of 274 clinical questionnaires showed that clinical and physics assessments did not place systems in the same order, based on a given image quality parameter. In almost all the comparisons, low level correlation was measured for statistical comparison of rank order (rs < 0.3). However, broad agreement was observed between physics and clinical assessments for image quality associated with contrast and noise. This study emphasises the importance of maintaining links with clinical assessment, when developing quality assurance metrics, and measuring the mutual performance of clinical and physical assessments of image quality.


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
 Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
C. Walsh, D. Gorman, P. Byrne, A. Larkin, A. Dowling, and J. F. Malone
QUALITY ASSURANCE OF COMPUTED AND DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY SYSTEMS
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, March 4, 2008; (2008) ncn047v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Radiat Prot DosimetryHome page
R. Padovani, A. Trianni, C. Bokou, H. Bosmans, J. Jankowski, S. Kottou, K. Kepler, J. Malone, V. Tsapaki, D. Salat, et al.
Survey on performance assessment of cardiac angiography systems
Radiat Prot Dosimetry, March 1, 2008; 129(1-3): 108 - 111.
[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.