Image Quality Assessment of the Digital Radiography Units in Tabriz, Iran: A Phantom Study
DOI: 10.4103/jmss.JMSS_30_18
Abstract
Creating a high-quality image with the low patient dose is one of the most important goals in medical X-ray imaging. In this study, the image quality parameters of the digital radiographic units in Tabriz city were considered and compared with the international protocols. The image quality parameters were measured at 11 high workload digital radiography (DR) imaging centers in Tabriz city, and the results were compared to DINN 6868/58 standards. All centers equipped with the direct DR units passed the spatial resolution, low contrast detectability, contrast dynamic range, and noise tests, while the computed radiography (CR) units only could pass the two last tests. The highest spatial resolution was observed 3.2 lp/mm in the DR unit while the lowest one was 1.8 lp/mm in the CR unit. The highest noise was measured to be 0.03 OD that was observed in the DR unit. The most difference between the nominal and measured peak kilovoltage and mAs was 3.1% and 6.8%, respectively. The entrance surface air kerma in all units was obtained <0.63 mGy. The measured half-value layer range was between 2.4 and 3.54 mmAl. The physical parameters of image quality such as spatial resolution, contrast, and noise are robustness quantitative parameters for the assessment of the image quality performance of the units. Therefore, measurement and control of these parameters using two-dimensional phantoms are very critical.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Ween B, Kristoffersen DT, Hamilton GA, Olsen DR. Image quality preferences among radiographers and radiologists. A conjoint analysis. Radiography 2005;11:191-7.
Bath M, Månsson LG. Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: A non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation. Br J Radiol 2007;80:169-76.
Mansson L. Methods for the evaluation of image quality: A review. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2000;90:89-99.
Aichinger H, Dierker J, Joite-Barfuß S, Sabel M. Radiation Exposure and Image Quality in X-ray Diagnostic Radiology: Physical Principles and Clinical Applications. Springer Science & Business Media; 2011.
Jones AK, Heintz P, Geiser W, Goldman L, Jerjian K, Martin M, et al. Ongoing quality control in digital radiography: Report of AAPM imaging physics committee task group 151. Med Phys 2015;42:6658-70.
Zoetelief J, van Soldt RT, Suliman II, Jansen JT, Bosmans H. Quality control of equipment used in digital and interventional radiology. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005;117:277-82.
Kloth JK, Neumann R, von Stillfried E, Stiller W, Burkholder I, Kauczor HU, et al. Quality-controlled dose-reduction of pelvic X-ray examinations in infants with hip dysplasia. Eur J Radiol 2016;85:233-8.
Veldkamp WJ, Kroft LJ, Geleijns J. Dose and perceived image quality in chest radiography. Eur J Radiol 2009;72:209-17.
Boone JM, Cody DD, Fisher JR, Frey GD, Glasser H, Gray JE, et al. Quality Control in Diagnostic Radiology. Vol. 74. New York: American Association of Physicists; 2002. p. 1-77.
Moser JB, Sheard SL, Edyvean S, Vlahos I. Radiation dose-reduction strategies in thoracic CT. Clin Radiol 2017;72:407-20.
Yacoob HY, Mohammed HA. Assessment of patients X-ray doses at three government hospitals in Duhok city lacking requirements of effective quality control. J Radiat Res Appl Sci 2017;10:183-7.
Ngoye WM, Motto JA, Muhogora WE. Quality control measures in Tanzania: Is it done? J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 2015;46 Suppl 3:S23-30.
Aldrich JE, Duran E, Dunlop P, Mayo JR. Optimization of dose and image quality for computed radiography and digital radiography. J Digit Imaging 2006;19:126-31.
Asadinezhad M, Bahreyni Toossi MT, Ebrahiminia A, Giahi M. Quality control assessment of conventional radiology devices in Iran. Iran J Med Phys 2017;14:1-7.
Suliman I, Zoetelief J, Van Soldt R. Protocol for Quality Control of Equipment used in Digital and Interventional Radiology. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University for Technology; 2003.
Niemann T, Reisinger C, Rau P, Schwarz J, Ruis-Lopez L, Bongartz G, et al. Image quality in conventional chest radiography. Evaluation using the postprocessing tool diamond view. Eur J Radiol 2010;73:555-9.
Hinojos-Armendáriz VI, Mejia-Rosales SJ, Franco-Cabrera MC. Optimisation of radiation dose and image quality in mobile neonatal chest radiography. Radiography (Lond) 2018;24:104-9.
Uffmann M, Schaefer-Prokop C. Digital radiography: The balance between image quality and required radiation dose. Eur J Radiol 2009;72:202-8.
Schreiner-Karoussou A. Review of image quality standards to control digital X-ray systems. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2005;117:23-5.
Lanhede B, Båth M, Kheddache S, Sund P, Björneld L, Widell M, et al. The influence of different technique factors on image quality of chest radiographs as evaluated by modified CEC image quality criteria. Br J Radiol 2002;75:38-49.
Normung DI, editor. DIGRAD phantom for digital radiography. In: Image Quality Assurance in Diagnostic X-ray Departments. DIN V 6868-58. Sulzbach, Germany: Pehamed 2016. p. 17.
International Elelctrotechnical Commission. Report 60601 Medical Electrical Equipment. Particular Requirements for the Safety of X-Ray Equipment for Interventional Procedures. Part 2-43. Geneva, Switzerland: International Elelctrotechnical Commission; 2000.
Schaefer-Prokop CM, De Boo DW, Uffmann M, Prokop M. DR and CR: Recent advances in technology. Eur J Radiol 2009;72:194-201.
Kramer R, Khoury HJ, Vieira JW. CALDose_X-a software tool for the assessment of organ and tissue absorbed doses, effective dose and cancer risks in diagnostic radiology. Phys Med Biol 2008;53:6437-59.
Schaetzing R. Management of pediatric radiation dose using Agfa computed radiography. Pediatr Radiol 2004;34 Suppl 3:S207-14.
Geijer H, Norrman E, Persliden J. Optimizing the tube potential for lumbar spine radiography with a flat-panel digital detector. Br J Radiol 2009;82:62-8.
Uffmann M, Neitzel U, Prokop M, Kabalan N, Weber M, Herold CJ, et al. Flat-panel-detector chest radiography: Effect of tube voltage on image quality. Radiology 2005;235:642-50.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
https://e-rasaneh.ir/Certificate/22728
ISSN : 2228-7477