Advanced

The Influence of Different Technique Factors on Image Quality for Chest Radiographs: Application of the Recent CEC Image Quality Criteria

Lanhede, B.; Tingberg, Anders LU ; Månsson, L.G.; Kheddache, S.; Widell, M.; Björneld, L.; Sund, P.; Almén, A.; Besjakov, Jack LU and Mattsson, Sören LU , et al. (2000) In Radiation Protection Dosimetry 90(1-2). p.203-206
Abstract
The aim of the first this work part of the EU-project, Trial I, was to evaluate and possibly improve the CEC image criteria for radiographic chest images. Chest images of healthy volunteers were acquired using different technique factors. The image criteria were used as a tool to discriminate between the different images. The technique factors were chosen so that the image quality would differ slightly. Four different technique parameters, each with two possible settings, used in clinical practice today, were used: tube voltage - 102 and 141 kV; screen/film speed - 160 and 320; maximum optical density in the parenchyma - 1.3 and 1.8; method for scatter reduction - air gap 30/390 and moving grid40/12. The results showed that the image... (More)
The aim of the first this work part of the EU-project, Trial I, was to evaluate and possibly improve the CEC image criteria for radiographic chest images. Chest images of healthy volunteers were acquired using different technique factors. The image criteria were used as a tool to discriminate between the different images. The technique factors were chosen so that the image quality would differ slightly. Four different technique parameters, each with two possible settings, used in clinical practice today, were used: tube voltage - 102 and 141 kV; screen/film speed - 160 and 320; maximum optical density in the parenchyma - 1.3 and 1.8; method for scatter reduction - air gap 30/390 and moving grid40/12. The results showed that the image criteria were able to separate between different technique groups. Some conclusions can be drawn from the results Optical density 1.8 was better than 1.3 independent of the other parameters. . Among the six combinations ranked best , four used tube voltage 141 kV and four used air gap technique for scatter reduction. No difference was seen for screen/film speed. No correlation was seen between the ranking of the systems and patient dose. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
, et al. (More)
(Less)
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Radiation Protection Dosimetry
volume
90
issue
1-2
pages
203 - 206
publisher
Nuclear Technology Publishing
external identifiers
  • wos:000089186500038
  • scopus:0033822663
ISSN
1742-3406
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
a028bf1c-0ae9-4db6-b391-8acfa18c4e7d (old id 1296920)
alternative location
http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/1-2/203
date added to LUP
2009-07-15 15:52:17
date last changed
2017-01-01 07:13:38
@article{a028bf1c-0ae9-4db6-b391-8acfa18c4e7d,
  abstract     = {The aim of the first this work part of the EU-project, Trial I, was to evaluate and possibly improve the CEC image criteria for radiographic chest images. Chest images of healthy volunteers were acquired using different technique factors. The image criteria were used as a tool to discriminate between the different images. The technique factors were chosen so that the image quality would differ slightly. Four different technique parameters, each with two possible settings, used in clinical practice today, were used: tube voltage - 102 and 141 kV; screen/film speed - 160 and 320; maximum optical density in the parenchyma - 1.3 and 1.8; method for scatter reduction - air gap 30/390 and moving grid40/12. The results showed that the image criteria were able to separate between different technique groups. Some conclusions can be drawn from the results Optical density 1.8 was better than 1.3 independent of the other parameters. . Among the six combinations ranked best , four used tube voltage 141 kV and four used air gap technique for scatter reduction. No difference was seen for screen/film speed. No correlation was seen between the ranking of the systems and patient dose.},
  author       = {Lanhede, B. and Tingberg, Anders and Månsson, L.G. and Kheddache, S. and Widell, M. and Björneld, L. and Sund, P. and Almén, A. and Besjakov, Jack and Mattsson, Sören and Zankl, M. and Panzer, W. and Herrmann, C.},
  issn         = {1742-3406},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {1-2},
  pages        = {203--206},
  publisher    = {Nuclear Technology Publishing},
  series       = {Radiation Protection Dosimetry},
  title        = {The Influence of Different Technique Factors on Image Quality for Chest Radiographs: Application of the Recent CEC Image Quality Criteria},
  volume       = {90},
  year         = {2000},
}