Skip to main content

New Developed DR Detector Performs Radiographs of Hand, Pelvic and Premature Chest Anatomies at a Lower Radiation Dose and/or a Higher Image Quality


A newly developed Digital Radiography (DR) detector has smaller pixel size and higher fill factor than earlier detector models. These technical advantages should theoretically lead to higher sensitivity and higher spatial resolution, thus making dose reduction possible without scarifying image quality compared to previous DR detector versions. To examine whether the newly developed Canon CXDI-70C DR detector provides an improved image quality and/or allows for dose reductions in hand and pelvic bone examinations as well as premature chest examinations, compared to the previous (CXDI-55C) DR detector version. A total of 450 images of a technical Contrast-Detail phantom were imaged on a DR system employing various kVp and mAs settings, providing an objective image quality assessment. In addition, 450 images of anthropomorphic phantoms were taken and analyzed by three specialized radiologists using Visual Grading Analysis (VGA). The results from the technical phantom studies showed that the image quality expressed as IQFINV values was on average approximately 45 % higher with the CXDI-70C detector compared to the CXDI-55C detector. Consistently, the VGA results from the anatomical phantom studies indicated that by using the CXDI-70C detector, diagnostic image quality could be maintained at a dose reduction of in average 30 %, depending on anatomy and kVp level. This indicates that the CXDI-70C detector is significantly more sensitive than the previous model, and supports a better clinical image quality. By using the newly developed DR detector a significant dose reduction is possible while maintaining image quality.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7


  1. Medic Exchange Inc., Medical Conference news - ECR 2010: Canon Displays CXDI-70C Wireless at ECR10. Availible at: accessed 13 of December 2011.

  2. Inc C: Medical Equipment group: Digital Radiography: CXDI-70C, User’s Manual. Canon Inc., Tokyo, 2011

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM, Boone JJM: The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging, 2nd edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  4. European Commission: European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Diagnostic Radiographic Images in Paediatrics. Bruxelles, Luxemburg, 1996a.

  5. Fahey FB, Treves ST, Adelstein SJ: Minimizing and communicating radiation risk in pediatric nuclear medicine. J Nucl Med Technol 52(8):1240–1251, 2011

    Google Scholar 

  6. Alliance for Radiation Safety in Pediatric Imaging: Image gently. Available at: Accessed 26. February 2013.

  7. ICRP, V., J.: ICRP Publication 93, Managing patient dose in digital radiology. Orlando, Amsterdam, Tokyo, Singapore. Elsevier Ltd., 2004.

  8. Carlander A, Hansson J, Söderberg J, Steneryd K, Båth M: The effect of radiation dose reduction on clinical image quality in chest radiography of premature neonates using a dual-side readout technique Computed Radiography system. Radiat Prot Dosim 139(1–3):275–280, 2010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Østergaard M: Can Imaging Be Used for Inflammatory Arthritis Screening? Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 16:401–409, 2012

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Personal communication through Chris Deurman to Canon Inc., Canon Europe, Amsterdam, May/June 2013.

  11. Canon Inc. Medical Equipment group: Digital Radiography: CXDI-55C, User’s Manual. Canon Inc., Tokyo, Japan, 2009.

  12. Precht H, Gerke O, Rosendahl K, Tingberg A, Waaler D: Digital radiography: Optimization of image quality and dose using multi frequency software. Pediatr Radiol 42(9):1112–1118, 2012

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gonzales RC, Woods RE: Digital Image Processing, 3rd edition. Pearson, Prentice Hall, USA, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  14. Canon Inc.: CXDI Image Processing Software MLT(S) User’s Manual. Japan, Canon Inc., 2008.

  15. Artinis: Manual – Contrast-Detail Phantom. Artinis CDRAD type 2.0. Zetten, The Netherlands, Artinis, 2006.

  16. Gammex: The neonatal chest phantom-Physics behind the phantom, 2nd edition. Gammex, Nottingham, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  17. The Phantom Laboratory: Sectional Hand Phantoms, XA231R and XA231P, part number XA231. New York, USA, The Phantom Laboratory, 2012.

  18. Neofostistaou V, Tsapaki V, Kottou S, Schreiner-Karoussou A, Vano E: Does digital imaging decrease patient dose? Radiat Prot Dosimetry 117(1–3):204–210, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  19. Norrman, E.: Optimisation of radiographic imaging by means of factorial experiments. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Örebro, Sweden, 2007.

  20. Tingberg A, Sjöström D: Optimisation of image plate radiography with respect to tube voltage. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 114:1–3, 2005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Almén A, Tingberg A, Mattsson S, Besjakov J, Kheddanche S, Lanhede B, Månsson, Zankl M: The influence of different technique factors on image quality of lumbar spine radiographs as evaluated by established CEC image criteria. Br J Radiol 73:1192–1199, 2000

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sund P, Båth M, Kheddache S, Mansson L: Comparison of visual grading analysis and determination of detective quantum efficiency for evaluating system performance in digital chest radiography. Eur Radiol 14(1):143–150, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  23. Månsson LG: Methods for the evaluation of image quality: A review. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 90:89–99, 2000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Båth M, Månsson LG: Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: a non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation. Br J Radiol 80:169–176, 2007

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bontrager KL: Textbook of Radiographic Positioning and Related Anatomi, 4th edition. Bontrager Publishing, Phoenix, 2002

    Google Scholar 

  26. Commission E: European guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. Bruxelles, Luxemburg, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lanhede B, Båth M, Kherddache S, Sund P, Björneld L, Widell M, Almén A, et al: The influence of different technique factors on image quality of chest radiographs as evaluated by modified CEC image quality criteria. Br J Radiol 75:38–49, 2002

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Brennan PC, Johnston D: Irish X-ray departments demonstrate varying levels of adherence to European guidelines on good radiographic technique. Br J Radiol 75:243–248, 2002

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rainford LA, Al-Qattan E, McFadden S, Brennan PC: CEC analysis of radiological images produced in Europe and Asia. Radiography 13:202–209, 2006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Larsen ALS: Videnskab og forskning: en lærebog for professionsuddannelser, 2nd edition. Gads Forlag, Denmark, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  31. Polit DF, Beck CT: Nursing Research generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice, 8th edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philiadelphia, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  32. Randolph, J.J.: Free-marginal multirater kappa: An alternative to Fleiss’ fixed-marginal multirater kappa. Paper presented at the Joensuu University Learning and Instruction Symposium 2005, Joensuu, Finland, October 14-15th, 2005.

  33. StataCorp: Stata Release 12. Statistical Software. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP. Texas, USA, 2011.

  34. Tonkopi E, Daniels C, Gale MJ, Schofield SC, Vanlarkin JL: Local diagnostic reference levels for typical radiographic procedures. Can Assoc Radiol J 63(4):237–241, 2012

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We would like to thank AC Stoevring, JH Eckmann, R Kring, CM Svendsen, C Hansen, H Flounders, R Goksøyr, G Høyer and L Graversen for their hard work with the data collection; and the involved Radiologists from the Medical Imaging Department at Lillebelt Hospital, Kolding for their critical image analysis in the VGA.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helle Precht.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Precht, H., Tingberg, A., Waaler, D. et al. New Developed DR Detector Performs Radiographs of Hand, Pelvic and Premature Chest Anatomies at a Lower Radiation Dose and/or a Higher Image Quality. J Digit Imaging 27, 68–76 (2014).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Digital radiography
  • Image quality
  • Radiation dose
  • Equipment
  • Image perception
  • Phantoms
  • Imaging
  • Radiography