Advanced search
Publication Cover
Acta Radiologica Volume 44, 2003 - Issue 6
Journal homepage
3,732
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Comparison of indirect CsI/A:Si and direct a: SE digital radiography
An assessment of contrast and detail visualization

F. Fischbach Department of Radiology, Charité, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Humboldt-University Medical School, Berlin, Germany
,
T. Freund Department of Radiology, Charité, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Humboldt-University Medical School, Berlin, Germany
,
M. Pech Department of Radiology, Charité, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Humboldt-University Medical School, Berlin, Germany
,
M. Werk Department of Radiology, Charité, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Humboldt-University Medical School, Berlin, Germany
,
C. Bassir Department of Radiology, Charité, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Humboldt-University Medical School, Berlin, Germany
,
B. Stoever Department of Radiology, Charité, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Humboldt-University Medical School, Berlin, Germany
,
R. Felix Department of Radiology, Charité, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Humboldt-University Medical School, Berlin, Germany
&
J. Ricke Department of Radiology, Charité, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Humboldt-University Medical School, Berlin, Germany
 show all
Pages 616-621 | Published online: 09 Jul 2009

References

  • Aufrichtig R. Comparison of low contrast detectability between a digital amorphous silicon and a screen-film based imaging system for thoracic radiography. Med. Phys. 1999; 26: 1349.
  • Berkson J, Goud CA, Carr DT, Bruwer AJ. Identification of positives in roentgenographic readings. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 1960; 81: 660.
  • Burger GC. Phantom tests with x-rays. Philips technical review 11. 1950: 291–8.
  • Busch HP. Digital projection radiography. Technical bases. Imaging quality and usefulness. Radiologe 1999; 39: 710.
  • Chotas HG, Dobbins JT III, Ravin CE. Principles of digital radiography with large-area, electronically read-able detectors: a review of the basics. Radiology 1999; 219: 595.
  • Floyd C JR, Baker JA, Chotas HG, Delong DM, Ravin CE. Selenium-based digital radiography of the chest: radio-logists' preference compared with film-screen radiographs. AJR 1995; 165: 1353.
  • Geijer H, Beckmann KW, Torbjörn A, Persliden J. Image quality vs radiation dose for a flat-panel amorphous silicon detector: a phantom study. Eur. Radiol. 2001; 11: 1704.
  • Granfors PR, Aufrichtig R. Performance of a 41 x 41-cm2 amorphous silicon flat panel x-ray detector for radiographic imaging applications. Med. Phys. 2000; 27: 1324.
  • Gurvich V, Wolf M. Introducing a phantom to deter-mine radiation dose in diagnostic radiology. In: Digitale Bildgebung in der Diagnostischen Radiologie, Bildqualität-Strahlenexposition, p. 287. Edited by T. Schmidt et al. H. Hoffmann Verlag 1996.
  • Herrmann A, Bonel H, Stabler A et al. Chest imaging with flat-panel detector at low and standard doses: Comparison with storage phosphor technology in normal patients. Eur. Radiol. 2002; 12: 385.
  • Kehler M, Lyttkens K, Andersson B et al. Phantom study of chest radiography with storage phosphor, selenium and film-screen systems. Acta Radiol. 1996; 37: 332.
  • Neitzel U, Maack I, Guenther-Kohfahl S. Image quality of a digital chest radiography system based on a selenium detector. Med. Phys. 1994; 21: 509.
  • Schaefer-Prokop CM, Prokop M, Schmidt A, Neitzel U, Galanski M. Selenium radiography versus storage phos-phor and conventional radiography in the detection of simulated chest lesions. Radiology 1996; 201: 45.
  • Swets J, Pickett R. Evaluation of Diagnostic Systems. Academic Press 1982.
  • Thijssen MA, Thijssen HO, Merx JL, van Woensel MP. Quality analysis of DSA equipment. Neuroradiology 1988; 30: 561.
  • Woodard PK, Slone RM, Gierada DS, Reiker GU, Pilgram TK, Jost RG. Chest radiography: depiction of normal anatomy and pathologic structures with selenium-based digital radiography versus conventional screen-film radiography. Radiology 1997; 203: 197.
  • Yerushalmy J. Reliability of chest radiography in the diagnosis of pulmonary lesions. Am. J. Surg. 1955; 89: 231.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.