Introduction of a New Parameter for Evaluation of Digital Radiography System Performance

Mohammad Reza Choopani, Ali Chaparian

DOI: 10.4103/jmss.JMSS_53_19


Background: The aim of this study was to compare the image quality and radiation doses in various digital radiography systems using contrast-detail radiography (CDRAD) phantom. Methods: The image quality and radiation dose for seven different digital radiography systems were compared using the CDRAD phantom. Incident air kerma (IAK) values were measured for certain exposure settings in all digital radiography systems. The images from the CDRAD phantom were evaluated by three observers. The results were displayed in the form of a contrast-detail (CD) curve. In addition, the inverse image quality figure (IQFinv)-to-IAK ratios were used for quantitative comparison of different digital radiography system performance. Results: Results of this study showed that the CD curves cannot be suitable criterion for determining the performance of digital radiography systems. For this reason, IQFinv-to-radiation dose (IAK) ratios in a fixed radiation condition were used. The highest performance in terms of producing high-quality images and low radiation dose was related to X-ray unit 1 and the lowest performance was for X-ray unit 5. Conclusion: The ratio of IQFinv to IAK for performance evaluation of digital radiography systems is an innovation of this study. A digital radiography system with a higher IQFinv-to-IAK ratio is associated with lower patient dose and better image quality. Therefore, it is recommended to equip the new imaging centers with the systems that have higher IQFinv-to-IAK ratios.

Full Text:



Precht H, Tingberg A, Waaler D, Outzen CB. New developed DR detector performs radiographs of hand, pelvic and premature chest anatomies at a lower radiation dose and/or a higher image quality. J Digit Imaging 2014;27:68-76.

Bacher K, Smeets P, Vereecken L, De Hauwere A, Duyck P, De Man R, et al. Image quality and radiation dose on digital chest imaging: Comparison of amorphous silicon and amorphous selenium flat-panel systems. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:630-7.

Lu ZF, Nickoloff EL, So JC, Dutta AK. Comparison of computed radiography and film/screen combination using a contrast-detail phantom. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2003;4:91-8.

Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM, Boone JM. The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.

Kaheni H, Chaparian A, Nafisi-Moghadam R, Hamzian N. Assessment of image quality and radiation dose in some models of digital radiography systems – A Pehamed FLUORAD A plus D phantom study. Radioprotection 2018;53:139-44.

Notohamiprodjo S, Verstreepen L, Wanninger F, Hoberg B, Röper KM, Mück FG, et al. Dependence of low contrast detail on exposure dose and tube voltage in digital flat-panel detector radiography – A pre-clinical phantom study. Biomed Phys Eng Express 2018;2:25010.

Uffmann M, Schaefer-Prokop C. Digital radiography: The balance between image quality and required radiation dose. Eur J Radiol 2009;72:202-8.

Sun Z, Lin C, Tyan Y, Ng KH. Optimization of chest radiographic imaging parameters: A comparison of image quality and entrance skin dose for digital chest radiography systems. Clin Imaging 2012;36:279-86.

Rong XJ, Shaw CC, Liu X, Lemacks MR, Thompson SK. Comparison of an amorphous silicon/cesium iodide flat-panel digital chest radiography system with screen/film and computed radiography systems – A contrast-detail phantom study. Med Phys 2001;28:2328-35.

Fischbach F, Ricke J, Freund T, Werk M, Spors B, Baumann C, et al. Flat panel digital radiography compared with storage phosphor computed radiography: Assessment of dose versus image quality in phantom studies. Invest Radiol 2002;37:609-14.

Kroft LJ, Veldkamp WJ, Mertens BJ, Boot MV, Geleijns J. Comparison of eight different digital chest radiography systems: Variation in detection of simulated chest disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:339-46.

Fischbach F, Freund T, Pech M, Werk M, Bassir C, Stoever B, et al. Comparison of indirect CsI/a:Si and direct a:Se digital radiography. An assessment of contrast and detail visualization. Acta Radiol 2003;44:616-21.

Yvert M, Diallo A, Bessou P, Rehel JL, Lhomme E, Chateil JF. Radiography of scoliosis: Comparative dose levels and image quality between a dynamic flat-panel detector and a slot-scanning device (EOS system). Diagn Interv Imaging 2015;96:1177-88.

Choopani MR, Chaparian A. Evaluation of image quality and radiation dose in upgraded analog radiographic systems using the contrast detail radiography (CDRAD) phantom. J Isfahan Med Sch 2019;37:1169-75.

Al-Murshedi SH, Hogg P, England A. A Phantom Study Comparing Image Quality and Radiation Exposure for Adult Chest Radiography Examinations in Hospitals Using 17 Diagnostic radiography X-Ray Units. Congress: ECR; 2018.

Veldkamp WJ, Kroft LJ, Boot MV, Mertens BJ, Geleijns J. Contrast-detail evaluation and dose assessment of eight digital chest radiography systems in clinical practice. Eur Radiol 2006;16:333-41.

Thomas JA, Chakrabarti K, Kaczmarek R Romanyukha A. A contrast-detail phantom scoring methodology. Med Phys 2005;3:807-14.

Thijssen M, Bijkerk K, van der Burght R. Manual Cdrad-Phantom Type 2.0. Project Quality Assurance in Radiology. Section Clinical Physics, Department of Radiology, University hospital Nijmegen, St Radboud; 1998.

Yalcin A, Olgar T. Characterizing the digital radiography system in terms of effective detective quantum efficiency and CDRAD measurement. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res Sect A 2018;896:113-21.

Geso M, Shanahan M, Alghamdi SS, Davidson R, Alghamdi S. Low-contrast detail phantom: Proof of concept. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci 2016;47:60-5.


  • There are currently no refbacks.