+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Portable flat-panel detector for low-dose imaging in a pediatric intensive care unit: comparison with an asymmetric film-screen system



Portable flat-panel detector for low-dose imaging in a pediatric intensive care unit: comparison with an asymmetric film-screen system



Investigative Radiology 40(11): 736-741



Objective: We sought to evaluate the diagnostic performance of a portable indirect flat-panel detector for low-dose imaging as compared with an asymmetric film-screen system in a pediatric intensive care unit.Materials and Methods: A total of 120 neonates underwent chest radiographs using a portable flat-panel detector (digital speed 800) and an asymmetric film-screen system (400 speed). Four readers evaluated the detection of 11 anatomic and 5 pathologic landmarks and 4 support devices.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 012430657

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 16230907


Related references

Portable Flat-Panel Detector for Low-Dose Imaging in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit. Investigative Radiology 40(11): 736-741, 2005

Flat-panel x-ray detector based on amorphous silicon versus asymmetric screen-film system: phantom study of dose reduction and depiction of simulated findings. Radiology 227(2): 484-492, 2003

Portable chest radiology in intensive care: a comparison of a new dual characteristic film-screen system (Insight) incorporating a flexible grid with a standard film-screen system. Clinical Radiology 51(7): 494-498, 1996

Comparison of the image quality of a high-resolution screen-film system and a digital flat panel detector system in avian radiography. Veterinary Radiology and Ultrasound 52(3): 256-261, 2011

Evaluation of detector dynamic range in the x-ray exposure domain in mammography: a comparison between film-screen and flat panel detector systems. Medical Physics 30(10): 2614-2621, 2003

Detection of simulated chest lesions with normal and reduced radiation dose: comparison of conventional screen-film radiography and a flat-panel x-ray detector based on amorphous silicon. Investigative Radiology 33(2): 98-103, 1998

Portable chest imaging: comparison of storage phosphor digital, asymmetric screen-film, and conventional screen-film systems. Radiology 186(2): 387-393, 1993

Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography. Ajr. American Journal of Roentgenology 181(4): 923-929, 2003

Lumbar spine radiography: digital flat-panel detector versus screen-film and storage-phosphor systems in monkeys as a pediatric model. Radiology 229(1): 140-144, 2003

Performance of a flat-panel detector in the detection of artificial erosive changes: comparison with conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography. European Radiology 13(6): 1316-1323, 2003

Amorphous silicon, flat-panel, x-ray detector versus screen-film radiography: effect of dose reduction on the detectability of cortical bone defects and fractures. Investigative Radiology 33(1): 33-38, 1998

Performance of a flat-panel detector in detecting artificial bone lesions: comparison with conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography. Radiology 222(2): 453-459, 2002

Radiation dose reduction in the neonatal intensive care unit. Comparison of three gadolinium oxysulfide screen-film combinations. Investigative Radiology 19(6): 578-582, 1984

Chest radiography with a large-area detector based on cesium-iodide/amorphous-silicon technology: image quality and dose requirement in comparison with an asymmetric screen-film system. Journal of Thoracic Imaging 15(3): 157-161, 2000

Thoracic radiography in intensive care units. Comparison of an asymmetric film-screen-grid combination with an L-film. Rofo 163(2): 104-110, 1995