Keywords:
Performed at one institution, Experimental, Not applicable, Kv imaging, Image verification, Cancer, Radiation safety, Dosimetry, Computer Applications-Detection, diagnosis, Digital radiography, Conventional radiography, Radioprotection / Radiation dose, Radiographers, Radiation physics, Radiation Protection
Authors:
N. M. T. Alresheedi1, S. Al-Murshedi2, A. K. Tootell1, J.-A. webb1, L. A. Walton1, P. Hogg1; 1Salford/UK, 2Karbala/IQ
DOI:
10.26044/ecr2020/C-09595
References
[1] Al-Murshedi S, Hogg P, Lanca L, England A. A novel method for comparing radiation dose and image quality, between and within different X-ray units in a series of hospitals. J Radiol Prot 2018. doi:10.1088/1361-6498/aae3fa.
[2] Al-Murshedi S, Hogg P, Meijer A, Erenstein H, England A. Comparative analysis of radiation dose and low contrast detail detectability using routine paediatric chest radiography protocols. Eur J Radiol 2019;113:198–203. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.02.017.
[3] Geijer H, Beckman K-W, Andersson T, Persliden J. Image quality vs radiation dose for a flat-panel amorphous silicon detector: a phantom study. Eur Radiol 2001;11:1704–9. doi:10.1007/s003300100851.
[4] Al-Murshedi S, Hogg P, England A. An investigation into the validity of utilising the CDRAD 2.0 phantom for optimisation studies in digital radiography. Br J Radiol 2018;91:20180317. doi:10.1259/bjr.20180317.
[5] De Crop A, Bacher K, Van Hoof T, Smeets P V, Smet BS, Vergauwen M, et al. Correlation of Contrast-Detail Analysis and Clinical Image Quality Assessment in Chest Radiography with a Human Cadaver Study. Radiology 2012;262:298–304. doi:10.1148/radiol.11110447.
[6] Burght R van der, Floor M, Thijssen M, Bijkerk R. Manual CDRAD 2.0 phantom and analyser software version 2.1. Einsteinweg 17 ,The Netherlands: Artinis Medical Systems; 2014.