BJR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

British Journal of Radiology (2003) 76, 398-405
© 2003 British Institute of Radiology
doi: 10.1259/bjr/76222078

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by van Soldt, R T M
Right arrow Articles by Zoetelief, J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by van Soldt, R T M
Right arrow Articles by Zoetelief, J

Survey of posteroanterior chest radiography in The Netherlands: patient dose and image quality

R T M van Soldt1, D Zweers2, L van den Berg1, J Geleijns2, J Th M Jansen1 and J Zoetelief1

1 Interfaculty Reactor Institute Delft University of Technology, Mekelweg 15, 2629 JB Delft and 2 Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands



View larger version (19K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 1. Image quality parameter K as a function of the inverse of effective dose. The fits shown refer only to the conventional systems or only the Thoravision systems. The slopes and standard deviations are 4.3±2.4 and 1.7±4.4, for conventional and Thoravision systems, respectively, indicating that the slope is not significantly different from zero at the 95% confidence level.

 


View larger version (17K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 2. Image quality parameter K as a function of the half value layer (HVL) for conventional systems. The slope of the fit is not significantly different from zero (0.006±0.044).

 


View larger version (16K):

[in a new window]
 
Figure 3. Effective dose as a function of half value layer (HVL). The fit refers to the conventional systems, including those with lung filters. The slope is significantly different from zero at the 95% confidence level (slope -1.9±0.6).

 





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
BJR DMFR IMAGING  ALL BIR JOURNALS 
Copyright © 2003 by the British Institute of Radiology.