ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Visual Evaluation of Image Quality of a Low Dose 2D/3D Slot Scanner Imaging System Compared to Two Conventional Digital Radiography X-ray Imaging Systems.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Standardisation and Optimisation of Chest and Pelvis X-Ray Imaging Protocols Across Multiple Radiography Systems in a Radiology Department.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Biplanar EOS screening in children with hereditary multiple osteochondromas: a feasible screening method?Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Preclinical and Preliminary Evaluation of Perceived Image Quality of AI-Processed Low-Dose CBCT Analysis of a Single Tooth.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Whole-Body Ultra-Low-Dose CT for Detection of Mechanical Ventriculoperitoneal Shunt Complications: A Retrospective Analysis.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2022Article
- Correction: Abdi et al. Visual Evaluation of Image Quality of a Low Dose 2D/3D Slot Scanner Imaging System Compared to Two Conventional Digital Radiography X-ray Imaging Systems.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the image quality of the low dose 2D/3D slot scanner (LDSS) imaging system compared to conventional digital radiography (DR) imaging systems. Visual image quality was assessed using the visual grading analysis (VGA) method. This method is a subjective approach that uses a human observer to evaluate and optimise radiographic images for different imaging technologies. METHODS AND MATERIALS: ten posterior-anterior (PA) and ten lateral (LAT) images of a chest anthropomorphic phantoms and a knee phantom were acquired by an LDSS imaging system and two conventional DR imaging systems. The images were shown in random order to three (chest) radiologists and three experienced (knee) radiographers, who scored the images against a number of criteria. Inter- and intraobserver agreement was assessed using Fleiss' kappa and weighted kappa.
resultsthe statistical comparison of the agreement between the observers showed good interobserver agreement, with Fleiss' kappa coefficients of 0.27-0.63 and 0.23-0.45 for the chest and knee protocols, respectively. Comparison of intraobserver agreement also showed good agreement with weighted kappa coefficients of 0.27-0.63 and 0.23-0.45 for the chest and knee protocols, respectively. The LDSS imaging system achieved significantly higher VGA image quality compared to the DR imaging systems in the AP and LAT chest protocols (
conclusionsthis work has shown that the LDSS imaging system has the potential to acquire chest and knee images at diagnostic quality and at a lower effective dose than DR systems.
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.