Subjective image quality of digital lumbar spine radiographs acquired with a new flat-panel dedicated chest system versus computed radiography in supine patients

2001 ◽  
Vol 1230 ◽  
pp. 1265-1266
Author(s):  
G. Pärtan ◽  
St. Newrkla ◽  
T. Mahdi ◽  
H. Mosser ◽  
L. Pichler ◽  
...  
2000 ◽  
Vol 73 (875) ◽  
pp. 1192-1199 ◽  
Author(s):  
A Almén ◽  
A Tingberg ◽  
S Mattsson ◽  
J Besjakov ◽  
S Kheddache ◽  
...  

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anders Tingberg ◽  
Magnus Bath ◽  
Markus Hakansson ◽  
Joakim Medin ◽  
Michael Sandborg ◽  
...  

2001 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 308-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
F Gijbels ◽  
G Sanderink ◽  
C Bou Serhal ◽  
H Pauwels ◽  
R Jacobs

2000 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 162-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Gijbels ◽  
A.-M. De Meyer ◽  
C. Bou Serhal ◽  
C. Van den Bossche ◽  
J. Declerck ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (7) ◽  
pp. 20190063 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cinar Aziman ◽  
Kristina Hellén-Halme ◽  
Xie-Qi Shi

Objectives The aims of this study were to evaluate the subjective image quality and reliability of two digital sensors. In addition, the image quality of the two sensors evaluated by specialists and general dentists were compared. Methods: 30 intraoral bitewings from five patients were included in the study, 15 were exposed with a Dixi sensor (CCD-based) and 15 with a ProSensor (CMOS-based) using modified parallel technique. Three radiologists and three general dentists evaluated the images in pair. A five-point scale was used to register the image quality. Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis was performed to compare the image quality and the observer agreement was assessed in terms of intra class correlation co-efficient. Results No statistically significant difference was found on image quality between the sensors. The average scores of the observer agreement were moderate with an average of 0.66 and an interval of 0.30 to 0.87, suggesting that there was a large variation on preference of image quality. However, there was a statistically significant difference in terms of the area under the VGC- curves between the specialist group and the general dentist group ( p = 0.043), in which the specialist group tended to favor the ProSensor. Conclusions Subjective image quality of the two intraoral sensors were comparable when evaluated by both general and oral radiologists. However, the radiologists seemed to prefer the ProSensor to the Dixi as compared to general dentists. Inter- observer conformance showed a large variation on the preference of the image quality.


2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georg Rose ◽  
Jens Wiegert ◽  
Dirk Schaefer ◽  
Klaus Fiedler ◽  
Norbert Conrads ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 34 (6Part23) ◽  
pp. 2634-2634 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Alspaugh ◽  
E Christodoulou ◽  
M Goodsitt ◽  
J Stayman

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document