[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
IJRR Information::
For Authors::
For Reviewers::
Subscription::
News & Events::
Web Mail::
::
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
ISSN
Hard Copy 2322-3243
Online 2345-4229
..
Online Submission
Now you can send your articles to IJRR office using the article submission system.
..

AWT IMAGE

AWT IMAGE

Volume 19, Issue 2 (4-2021)                   Int J Radiat Res 2021, 19(2): 269-279 | Back to browse issues page


XML Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Mosleh-Shirazi M, Amiri M, Ravanfar Haghighi R, Mahdavi M, Zarei F. Independent evaluation and comparison of digital radiography image quality in nine major imaging centers affiliated to Shiraz University of Medical Sciences. Int J Radiat Res 2021; 19 (2) :269-279
URL: http://ijrr.com/article-1-3641-en.html
Medical Imaging Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran , ravanhaghighi@yahoo.com
Abstract:   (3089 Views)
Background: To audit image quality (IQ) of computed radiography (CR), indirect digital radiography (IDR) and direct digital radiography (DDR) systems used in nine centers affiliated to Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. Material And Methods: Sixteen imaging units (four CR, five IDR and seven DDR) employing 26 image receptors were assessed. After ensuring the accuracy of X-ray generator performance, IQ was evaluated using a contrast-detail phantom. Spatial resolution, low contrast detectability (LCD) and dynamic range (as subjective indicators) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (as objective quantities) were evaluated. Further, the IQ evaluators of different image receptor types were compared.  Results: One CR unit failed the X-ray generator performance tests and was excluded from the rest of the study. All 25 remaining image receptors passed the LCD, CNR and SNR criteria. Contrast dynamic range failed in 19 receptors, 17 of them being within a ‘borderline’ failure range. Spatial resolution failed in 18 detectors; 12 of them were borderline failures. The IDR units performed better than the CR and DDR detectors in terms of LCD (p=0.012) and SNR (p=0.007).  Conclusions: All of the evaluated receptors passed the majority the IQ tests (both physical indicators and one out of the three subjective ones), while contrast dynamic range and spatial resolution of the majority of the failed detectors were borderline failures. Significant differences were observed in IQ among the three image receptors types. The results suggest the need for an improved maintenance, quality assurance and audit program.
 
Full-Text [PDF 2132 kb]   (2361 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original Research | Subject: Medical Physics

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

International Journal of Radiation Research
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.05 seconds with 50 queries by YEKTAWEB 4722