The use of reference image criteria in X-ray diagnostics: an application for the optimisation of lumbar spine radiographs

To ensure that sufficient image quality is obtained in diagnostic radiology, the image quality of clinical radiographs has to be evaluated. We present two methods herein for evaluating antero-posterior (AP) radiographs of the lumbar spine. One was using image criteria, including six anatomical details (absolute method). In the other, the visibility of anatomical details relative to a reference radiograph was evaluated (visual grading analysis). In total, 14 technique groups were evaluated. The technique groups differed in tube voltage and detector system characteristics. Six different gradients of the H&D curves were simulated. The visual grading analysis showed larger differences in image quality compared with the absolute method. The influence on the image quality due to a variation in tube voltage was easier to detect than the influence on the image quality from the detector characteristics. The visibility of the anatomical details was significantly dependent on the location in the spine. The visual grading analysis was found to be the preferable evaluation method in studies such as the present; however, it is necessary to guide and train the observer before the evaluation is performed.

[1]  M Båth,et al.  The influence of different technique factors on image quality of chest radiographs as evaluated by modified CEC image quality criteria. , 2002, The British journal of radiology.

[2]  M Zankl,et al.  The influence of different technique factors on image quality of lumbar spine radiographs as evaluated by established CEC image criteria. , 2000, The British journal of radiology.

[3]  U. Tylén,et al.  Image quality for five modern chest radiography techniques: a modified FROC study with an anthropomorphic chest phantom , 1999, European Radiology.

[4]  P. Brennan,et al.  Erbium filtration: a cost-effective, dose-reducing filter which maintains abdominal image quality , 1999, European Radiology.

[5]  S. Mattsson,et al.  Comparison of two methods for evaluating image quality of chest radiographs , 2000, Medical Imaging.

[6]  Wilbroad Edward Muhogora,et al.  Experiences with the European guidelines on quality criteria for radiographic images in Tanzania , 2001, Journal of applied clinical medical physics.

[7]  B. Akinlade,et al.  Comparison of entrance surface doses of some X ray examinations with CEC reference doses. , 2002, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[8]  Håkan Geijer,et al.  Image quality vs radiation dose for a flat-panel amorphous silicon detector: a phantom study , 2001, European Radiology.

[9]  E. Vañó,et al.  Report of an image quality and dose audit according to directive 97/43/Euratom at Spanish private radiodiagnostics facilities. , 1999, The British journal of radiology.

[10]  U Neitzel,et al.  Selenium radiography versus storage phosphor and conventional radiography in the detection of simulated chest lesions. , 1996, Radiology.

[11]  Patrik Sund,et al.  Evaluation of lumbar spine images with added pathology , 2000, Medical Imaging.

[12]  J Vassileva,et al.  Patient dose, image quality and radiographic techniques for common X ray examinations in two Greek hospitals and comparison with European guidelines. , 2001, Radiation protection dosimetry.

[13]  G. Tsourouflis,et al.  Patient Dose, Image Quality and Radiographic Techniques for Common X ray Examinations in Greece and Comparison with the European Guidelines , 2001 .

[14]  D. Blanc,et al.  European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images , 1998 .