Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 May 31;194(1):27-35.
doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncab067.

COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL HAND EXAMINATION ON SIX OPTIMISED DR SYSTEMS

Helle Precht  1   2   3 , Claus Bjørn Outzen  1 , Martin Weber Kusk  4 , Malene Bisgaard  1 , Dag Waaler  5
Affiliations

COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL HAND EXAMINATION ON SIX OPTIMISED DR SYSTEMS

Helle Precht et al. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. .

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the challenges in comparing digital radiography (DR) systems from different vendors for various combinations of exposure factors in posterior-anterior hand radiographs. Image quality was evaluated for a range of tube voltages and tube current-time products using a technical contrast-detail (CDRAD) phantom and an anthropomorphic hand phantom. 900 technical CDRAD images were analysed providing quality figures of merit (IQFinv) and two experienced reporting radiographers using visual grading analysis (VGA) scored 108 anthropomorphic images. This study demonstrates the differences between the DR systems included. When compensating for variations in dose, Canon showed superior results for technical image quality and Fuji for visual image quality for a standard dose point at DR hand examination (ln(DAP) 1.1, 50 kV and 2.5 mAs).

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Calibrated DAP variations from the CDRAD study, presented as percentage differences between DAP-values for each system and the average DAP value across all systems for each exposure parameter combination. The scale ranges from the lowest observed difference from the average (green) to the highest (red).
Figure 2
Figure 2
ln(< IQFinv>) vs. ln(<DAP>) (where < > symbolises averages from 10 repeated exposures) for all exposure parameter combinations averaged over all systems. In this plot, the slope corresponds to the β-exponent in the power regression model. Note that the reported value for the squared Pearson correlation coefficient (R2) is for the averaged data over all three tube voltages
Figure 3
Figure 3
Linear regression results of IQFinv (a) and VGAS (b), respectively, vs. ln(DAP), highlighting the differences in technical and visual quality figures of merit between the DR systems. The individual data points are omitted to make it easier to visually compare the systems. Regression results are shown in Table 4.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Sundhedsstyrelsen, Statens Institut for Strålebeskyttelse . Udviklingen I brug af røntgenundersøgelser I Danmark (2015). http://sundhedsstyrelsen.dk/da/Feeds/∼/media/6BFF6AD1889B42AAAE71560759B... accessed 11 December 2020.
    1. Precht, H. et al. Does software optimization influence the radiologists' perception in low dose paediatric pelvic examinations? Radiography 25(2), 143–147 (2019). - PubMed
    1. Atci, I. B., Yilmaz, H., Antar, V., Ozdemir, N. G., Baran, O., Sadillioglu, S., Ozel, M., Turk, O., Yaman, M. and Topacoglu, H. What do we know about ALARA? Is our knowledge sufficient about radiation safety? J. Neurosurg. Sci. 61(6), 597–602 (2017). - PubMed
    1. ICRP . Managing patient dose in digital radiology. ICRP publication 93. Ann. ICRP 34, 1–73 (2004). - PubMed
    1. Båth, M. Evaluating imaging systems: practical applications. Radiat. Protect. Dosim 139(1e3), 26e36 (2010). - PubMed