127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12195499)
1. Digital radiography: are the manufacturers' settings too high? Optimisation of the Kodak digital radiography system with aid of the computed radiography dose index.
Peters SE; Brennan PC
Eur Radiol; 2002 Sep; 12(9):2381-7. PubMed ID: 12195499
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Dose optimization for different medical imaging tasks from exposure index, exposure control factor, and MAS in digital radiography.
Zhang M; Zhao B; Wang Y; Chen W; Hou L
Health Phys; 2012 Sep; 103(3):235-40. PubMed ID: 22850227
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Effects of radiographic techniques on the low-contrast detail detectability performance of digital radiography systems.
Alsleem H; U P; Mong KS; Davidson R
Radiol Technol; 2014; 85(6):614-22. PubMed ID: 25002641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Are exposure index values consistent in clinical practice? A multi-manufacturer investigation.
Butler ML; Rainford L; Last J; Brennan PC
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010; 139(1-3):371-4. PubMed ID: 20223849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. An assessment of exposure indices in computed radiography for the posterior-anterior chest and the lateral lumbar spine.
Warren-Forward H; Arthur L; Hobson L; Skinner R; Watts A; Clapham K; Lou D; Cook A
Br J Radiol; 2007 Jan; 80(949):26-31. PubMed ID: 16916804
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. DigiBit: A System for Adjusting Radiographic Exposure Factors in the Digital Era.
Ching W; Robinson J; McEntee MF
Radiol Technol; 2015; 86(6):614-22. PubMed ID: 26199434
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Current state of practice regarding digital radiography exposure indicators and deviation indices: Report of AAPM Imaging Physics Committee Task Group 232.
Dave JK; Jones AK; Fisher R; Hulme K; Rill L; Zamora D; Woodward A; Brady S; MacDougall RD; Goldman L; Lang S; Peck D; Apgar B; Shepard SJ; Uzenoff R; Willis C
Med Phys; 2018 Nov; 45(11):e1146-e1160. PubMed ID: 30255505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Impact of acquisition parameters on dose and image quality optimisation in paediatric pelvis radiography-A phantom study.
Mohammed Ali A; Hogg P; Abuzaid M; England A
Eur J Radiol; 2019 Sep; 118():130-137. PubMed ID: 31439232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Optimising default radiographic exposure factors using Deviation Index.
Creeden A; Curtis M
Radiography (Lond); 2020 Nov; 26(4):308-313. PubMed ID: 32199801
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Ultra-high pitch chest computed tomography at 70 kVp tube voltage in an anthropomorphic pediatric phantom and non-sedated pediatric patients: Initial experience with 3
Hagelstein C; Henzler T; Haubenreisser H; Meyer M; Sudarski S; Schoenberg SO; Neff KW; Weis M
Z Med Phys; 2016 Dec; 26(4):349-361. PubMed ID: 26702762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Flat panel digital radiography compared with storage phosphor computed radiography: assessment of dose versus image quality in phantom studies.
Fischbach F; Ricke J; Freund T; Werk M; Spors B; Baumann C; Pech MJ; Felix R
Invest Radiol; 2002 Nov; 37(11):609-14. PubMed ID: 12393973
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Local diagnostic reference levels for typical radiographic procedures.
Tonkopi E; Daniels C; Gale MJ; Schofield SC; Sorhaindo VA; Vanlarkin JL
Can Assoc Radiol J; 2012 Nov; 63(4):237-41. PubMed ID: 22136965
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [A study of optimum radiographic conditions on chest examinations with computed radiology (CR) in conjunction with the offset balance of patient dose and image quality].
Muto H; Mori T; Hayakawa H
Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 2001 May; 61(6):303-9. PubMed ID: 11431936
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Image quality and exposure dose in digital projection radiography].
Busch HP; Busch S; Decker C; Schilz C
Rofo; 2003 Jan; 175(1):32-7. PubMed ID: 12525978
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Evaluating radiographic parameters for mobile chest computed radiography: phantoms, image quality and effective dose.
Rill LN; Brateman L; Arreola M
Med Phys; 2003 Oct; 30(10):2727-35. PubMed ID: 14596311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Assessment of image quality in dental radiography, part 2: optimum exposure conditions for detection of small mass changes in 6 intraoral radiography systems.
Yoshiura K; Kawazu T; Chikui T; Tatsumi M; Tokumori K; Tanaka T; Kanda S
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1999 Jan; 87(1):123-9. PubMed ID: 9927091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Detection of urinary stones at reduced radiation exposure: a phantom study comparing computed radiography and a low-dose digital radiography linear slit scanning system.
Szucs-Farkas Z; Chakraborty DP; Thoeny HC; Loupatatzis C; Vock P; Bonel HM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Jun; 192(6):W271-4. PubMed ID: 19457787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Image quality and dose management in digital radiography: a new paradigm for optimisation.
Busch HP; Faulkner K
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):143-7. PubMed ID: 16461521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The standardized exposure index for digital radiography: an opportunity for optimization of radiation dose to the pediatric population.
Seibert JA; Morin RL
Pediatr Radiol; 2011 May; 41(5):573-81. PubMed ID: 21491197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of image quality among three X-ray systems for chest radiography: first step in optimisation.
Nocetti D; Ubeda C; Calcagno S; Acevedo J; Pardo D
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):386-91. PubMed ID: 25821212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
