ArticleThe British journal of radiology2018
An investigation into the validity of utilising the CDRAD 2.0 phantom for optimisation studies in digital radiography.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing radiation dose and image quality in neonatal mobile radiography.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2025Article
- Automatic image quality evaluation in digital radiography using for-processing and for-presentation images.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Effects of body part thickness on low-contrast detail detection and radiation dose during adult chest radiography.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
- COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL HAND EXAMINATION ON SIX OPTIMISED DR SYSTEMS.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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine if a relationship exists between low contrast detail (LCD) detectability using the CDRAD 2.0 phantom, visual measures of image quality (IQ) and simulated lesion visibility (LV) when performing digital chest radiography (CXR).
methodsUsing a range of acquisition parameters, a CDRAD 2.0 phantom was used to acquire a set of images with different levels of image quality. LCD detectability using the CDRAD 2.0 phantom, represented by an image quality figure inverse (IQF
resultsPearson's correlation demonstrated a strong positive correlation (r = 0.91; p < 0.001) between the IQ and the IQF
conclusionsFrom results presented in this study, the automated evaluation of LCD detectability using CDRAD 2.0 phantom is likely to be a suitable option for IQ and LV evaluation in digital CXR optimisation studies. Advances in knowledge: This research establishes the potential of the CDRAD 2.0 phantom in digital CXR optimisation studies.
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.