ArticleThe British journal of radiology2018
Dependency of image quality on acquisition protocol and image processing in chest tomosynthesis-a visual grading study based on clinical data.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- VIEWDEX 3.0-RECENT DEVELOPMENT OF A SOFTWARE APPLICATION FACILITATING ASSESSMENT OF IMAGE QUALITY AND OBSERVER PERFORMANCE.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2021Article
- EVALUATION OF VGC ANALYZER BY COMPARISON WITH GOLD STANDARD ROC SOFTWARE AND ANALYSIS OF SIMULATED VISUAL GRADING DATA.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the quality of images obtained with two different protocols with different acquisition time and the influence from image post processing in a chest digital tomosynthesis (DTS) system.
methods20 patients with suspected lung cancer were imaged with a chest X-ray equipment with tomosynthesis option. Two examination protocols with different acquisition times (6.3 and 12 s) were performed on each patient. Both protocols were presented with two different image post-processing (standard DTS processing and more advanced processing optimised for chest radiography). Thus, 4 series from each patient, altogether 80 series, were presented anonymously and in a random order. Five observers rated the quality of the reconstructed section images according to predefined quality criteria in three different classes. Visual grading characteristics (VGC) was used to analyse the data and the area under the VGC curve (AUC
resultsThe protocol with 6.3 s acquisition time had a statistically significant advantage over the vendor-recommended protocol with 12 s acquisition time for the classes of criteria, Demarcation (AUC
conclusionThe study indicates that the protocol with 6.3 s acquisition time yields slightly better image quality than the vender-recommended protocol with acquisition time 12 s for several anatomical structures. Furthermore, the standard gradation processing (the vendor-recommended post-processing for DTS), yields to some extent advantage over the gradation processing/multiobjective frequency processing/flexible noise control processing in terms of image quality for all classes of criteria. Advances in knowledge: The study proves that the image quality may be strongly affected by the selection of DTS protocol and that the vendor-recommended protocol may not always be the optimal choice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.