Talk:Computed radiography

Compared to what?
I moved the "Advantages" and "Disadvantages" sections to here, because many of those seem to compare to old fashioned film rather than Direct radiography as emphasized in its differences to other methods previously. Thus, an inclusion requires specification about what is compared to. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

{|class="wikitable"

Advantages

 * No silver based film or chemicals are required to process film.
 * Reduced film storage costs because images can be stored digitally.
 * Computed radiography often requires fewer retakes due to under- or over-exposure which can result in lower overall dose to the patient, if you assume a moderate amount of retakes. CR can require up to 30% less dose than film.
 * Image acquisition is much faster - image previews can be available in less than 10 seconds.
 * By adjusting image brightness and/or contrast, a wide range of thicknesses may be examined in one exposure, unlike conventional film based radiography, which may require a different exposure or multiple film speeds in one exposure to cover wide thickness range in a component.
 * Images can be enhanced digitally to aid in interpretation.
 * Images can be stored on disk or transmitted for off-site review.
 * Ever growing technology makes the CR more affordable than ever today. With chemicals, dark room storage and staff to organize them, you could own a CR for the same monthly cost while being environmentally conscious, depending upon the size of the radiographic operation.

Disadvantages

 * In medical applications, manual handling of the cassette housing the IP is considered a disadvantage versus DR but it also offers more flexibility for patient positioning.
 * CR is still not an approved method for higher quality radiologic applications (aerospace), due to the possibility of digital manipulation to the captured image, the inherent geometric unsharpness and resultant lower spatial resolution as compared to film (radiographic) images, SNR (signal to noise ratio) issues, sensitivity to scattered radiation, and the general lack of procedural consensus among primes and OEMs.
 * There also are no quality (image resolution)standards for general radiography, only for mammography (21 CFR 900.12 (e)), however, competition among manufacturers has raised the bar and newer CR technologies with increased detective quantum efficiency (DQE) and higher spatial resolution have emerged.
 * Imaging plates (IPs) are expensive and can be damaged if the system being used requires manual handling of the IPs. Theoretically, IPs may be reused thousands of times, but constant use will always result in damage to the IP and image artifacts, eventually to the point of necessary replacement.
 * }

Computed radiography vs. Photostimulable phosphor (PSP) plate-based radiography
I understand the desire to avoid confusion with CT and to use a unified name, but I just wanted to point out that I think computed radiography (CR) is by far the more common name. I don't know how other people feel, and this is just a comment, not a request to change things again. Beevil (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It's surely worth discussing, Beevil. I think "computed radiography" is still a terribly unspecific name. Several sites (such as this one) uses it to refer to computed tomography, and this site defines "computed radiography" as imaging on computer monitors. Readers who do not know that "computed radiography" most commonly refers to phosphor plate radiography may be confused by the meaning of this term versus for example Digital radiography. Nevertheless, I've now clarified at Computed radiography that phosphor plate radiography is the term most commonly referred to. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)