Skip Navigation


Radiation Protection Dosimetry Advance Access originally published online on February 18, 2008
Radiation Protection Dosimetry 2008 129(1-3):140-143; doi:10.1093/rpd/ncn026
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
129/1-3/140    most recent
ncn026v1
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 Fernandez, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Vano, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fernandez, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Vano, E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Physical image quality comparison of four types of digital detector for chest radiology

J. M. Fernandez1,2,*, J. M. Ordiales1, E. Guibelalde2, C. Prieto1 and E. Vano1,2

1 Medical Physics Department, San Carlos University Hospital, 28040 Madrid, Spain
2 Radiology Department, Complutense University, 28040 Madrid, Spain

* Corresponding author: jfernandez.hcsc{at}salud.madrid.org

Image quality for similar exposure conditions has been compared for two computed radiography (CR) systems (needle-based and conventional storage phosphor) and two flat-panel (DR) systems from different manufacturers mainly devoted to chest radiology. Image quality was assessed with a contrast-detail object and acrylic material to simulate clinical conditions. Specific image evaluation software was used to measure the contrast and obtain an image quality figure. Phantom and detector incident air kerma were measured for all images. Image quality differences were significant, and in the range of 100–300 µGy (phantom incident air kerma) the needle-based CR system and one of the DR systems show similar image quality and they are quite superior when compared with the conventional CR system.


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




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.