Mourik J E M, van der Tol P, Veldkamp W J H, Geleijns J
Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Sint Franciscus Vlietland Group, Kleiweg 500, Rotterdam 3045 PM, The Netherlands Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Albinusdreef 2, Leiden 2333 ZA, The Netherlands
Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Albinusdreef 2, Leiden 2333 ZA, The Netherlands.
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2016 Jun;169(1-4):303-7. doi: 10.1093/rpd/ncv450. Epub 2015 Nov 2.
The purpose of this study was to compare dose and image quality of wireless detectors for digital chest radiography. Entrance dose at both the detector (EDD) and phantom (EPD) and image quality were measured for wireless detectors of seven different vendors. Both the local clinical protocols and a reference protocol were evaluated. In addition, effective dose was calculated. Main differences in clinical protocols involved tube voltage, tube current, the use of a small or large focus and the use of additional filtration. For the clinical protocols, large differences in EDD (1.4-11.8 µGy), EPD (13.9-80.2 µGy) and image quality (IQFinv: 1.4-4.1) were observed. Effective dose was <0.04 mSv for all protocols. Large differences in performance were observed between the seven different systems. Although effective dose is low, further improvement of imaging technology and acquisition protocols is warranted for optimisation of digital chest radiography.
