The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Portrait of Anders Tingberg. Photo

Anders Tingberg

Associate professor

Portrait of Anders Tingberg. Photo

The influence of different technique factors on image quality of chest radiographs as evaluated by modified CEC image quality criteria

Author

  • B Lanhede
  • M Bath
  • S Kheddache
  • P Sund
  • L Bjorneld
  • M Widell
  • A Almen
  • Jack Besjakov
  • Sören Mattsson
  • Anders Tingberg
  • C Herrmann
  • W Panzer
  • M Zankl
  • LG Mansson
Show all

Summary, in English

The Commission of the European Communities (CEC) research project "Predictivity and optimisation in medical radiation protection" addressed fundamental operational limitations in existing radiation protection mechanisms. The first part of the project aimed at investigating (1) whether the CEC image quality criteria could be used for optimization or a radiographic process and (2) whether significant differences in image quality based on these criteria could be detected in a controlled project with well known physical and technical parameters, In the present study. chest radiographs on film were produced using healthy volunteers. Four physical/technical parameters were varied in a carefully controlled manner: tube voltage ( 102 kVp and 14 1 kVp). nominal speed class (160 and 320). maximum film density (1.3 and 1.8) and method of scatter reduction (grid (R = 12) and air gap). The air kerma at the entrance surface was Measured for all patients and the risk-related dose H-Golem, based on calculated organ-equivalent dose conversion coefficients and the measured entrance air kerma values. was calculated, Image quality was evaluated by a group of European expert radiologists using a modified version of the CEC quality criteria. For the two density levels. density level 1.8 was significantly better than 1.3 but at the cost of a higher patient radiation exposure. The correlation between the number of fulfilled quality criteria and H-Golem was generally poor. An air gap technique resulted in lower doses than scatter reduction with a grid but provided comparable image quality. The criteria can be used to highlight optimum radiographic technique in terms of image quality and patient dose, although not unambiguously. A recommendation for good radiographic technique based on a compromise between image quality and risk-related radiation dose to the patient is to use 141 kVp. an air gap, a screen-film system with speed 320 and an optical density of 1.8.

Department/s

  • Medical Radiation Physics, Malmö

Publishing year

2002

Language

English

Pages

38-49

Publication/Series

British Journal of Radiology

Volume

75

Issue

889

Document type

Journal article

Publisher

British Institute of Radiology

Topic

  • Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging

Status

Published

Research group

  • Medical Radiation Physics, Malmö

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISSN: 1748-880X