Phantom study of chest radiography with storage phosphor, selenium, and film-screen systems
(1996) In Acta Radiologica 37(3). p.332-336- Abstract
Purpose: Chest radiographs from 3 digital systems - 2 based on luminescent phosphors and one on selenium - and a conventional film-screen system were evaluated and compared. Material and Methods: Computed radiography (CR) has for the past years been dominated by a single manufacturer, but now several systems have been marketed. Using a chest phantom and, as test objects, 2 simulated tumours for the lung and mediastinum, respectively, and one object simulating pulmonary lines, a total of 400 exposures were made, 100 on each system. The test objects were placed randomly with a ratio of presence/absence of each object of about 50. Six radiologists participated, 2 residents and 4 staff members. A receiver operating characteristics (ROC)... (More)
Purpose: Chest radiographs from 3 digital systems - 2 based on luminescent phosphors and one on selenium - and a conventional film-screen system were evaluated and compared. Material and Methods: Computed radiography (CR) has for the past years been dominated by a single manufacturer, but now several systems have been marketed. Using a chest phantom and, as test objects, 2 simulated tumours for the lung and mediastinum, respectively, and one object simulating pulmonary lines, a total of 400 exposures were made, 100 on each system. The test objects were placed randomly with a ratio of presence/absence of each object of about 50. Six radiologists participated, 2 residents and 4 staff members. A receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was performed with construction of curves, and the difference between the curves was estimated with a 2-tailed paired t-test. Results and Conclusion: The selenium-based system performed significantly better for pulmonary line detection than all the other systems, and better than one storage phosphor system for the lung "tumour" (p<0.05), while one storage phosphor system was slightly better than the other in diagnosing all 3 test objects. The score for the film-screen system was only average.
(Less)
- author
- Kehler, M. ; Lyttkens, K. LU ; Andersson, B. ; Hochbergs, P. LU ; Lindberg, C. G. ; Medin, J. LU ; Nordström, A. J. LU ; Sanfridsson, J. and Vojciechowski, J.
- publishing date
- 1996-01-01
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Chest radiography, Conventional film-screen, Phantom, ROC, Selenium
- in
- Acta Radiologica
- volume
- 37
- issue
- 3
- pages
- 332 - 336
- publisher
- SAGE Publications
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:0030138016
- pmid:8845264
- ISSN
- 0284-1851
- DOI
- 10.3109/02841859609177661
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- no
- id
- 7ce44e63-1f13-4ac7-9e35-452b1b2ee685
- date added to LUP
- 2019-05-28 22:19:28
- date last changed
- 2024-01-01 08:12:50
@article{7ce44e63-1f13-4ac7-9e35-452b1b2ee685,
abstract = {{<p>Purpose: Chest radiographs from 3 digital systems - 2 based on luminescent phosphors and one on selenium - and a conventional film-screen system were evaluated and compared. Material and Methods: Computed radiography (CR) has for the past years been dominated by a single manufacturer, but now several systems have been marketed. Using a chest phantom and, as test objects, 2 simulated tumours for the lung and mediastinum, respectively, and one object simulating pulmonary lines, a total of 400 exposures were made, 100 on each system. The test objects were placed randomly with a ratio of presence/absence of each object of about 50. Six radiologists participated, 2 residents and 4 staff members. A receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was performed with construction of curves, and the difference between the curves was estimated with a 2-tailed paired t-test. Results and Conclusion: The selenium-based system performed significantly better for pulmonary line detection than all the other systems, and better than one storage phosphor system for the lung "tumour" (p<0.05), while one storage phosphor system was slightly better than the other in diagnosing all 3 test objects. The score for the film-screen system was only average.</p>}},
author = {{Kehler, M. and Lyttkens, K. and Andersson, B. and Hochbergs, P. and Lindberg, C. G. and Medin, J. and Nordström, A. J. and Sanfridsson, J. and Vojciechowski, J.}},
issn = {{0284-1851}},
keywords = {{Chest radiography; Conventional film-screen; Phantom; ROC; Selenium}},
language = {{eng}},
month = {{01}},
number = {{3}},
pages = {{332--336}},
publisher = {{SAGE Publications}},
series = {{Acta Radiologica}},
title = {{Phantom study of chest radiography with storage phosphor, selenium, and film-screen systems}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/02841859609177661}},
doi = {{10.3109/02841859609177661}},
volume = {{37}},
year = {{1996}},
}