119 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15933081)
1. Evaluation of image quality of lumbar spine images: a comparison between FFE and VGA.
Tingberg A; Båth M; Håkansson M; Medin J; Besjakov J; Sandborg M; Alm-Carlsson G; Mattsson S; Månsson LG
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):53-61. PubMed ID: 15933081
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Inter-observer variation in masked and unmasked images for quality evaluation of clinical radiographs.
Tingberg A; Eriksson F; Medin J; Besjakov J; Båth M; Håkansson M; Sandborg M; Almén A; Lanhede B; Alm-Carlsson G; Mattsson S; Månsson LG
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):62-8. PubMed ID: 15933082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Influence of the characteristic curve on the clinical image quality of lumbar spine and chest radiographs.
Tingberg A; Herrmann C; Lanhede B; Almén A; Sandborg M; McVey G; Mattsson S; Panzer W; Besjakov J; Månsson LG; Kheddache S; Alm Carlsson G; Dance DR; Tylén U; Zankl M
Br J Radiol; 2004 Mar; 77(915):204-15. PubMed ID: 15020361
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Assessment and optimisation of the image quality of chest-radiography systems.
Redlich U; Hoeschen C; Doehring W
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):264-8. PubMed ID: 15933119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Nodule detection in digital chest radiography: effect of system noise.
Håkansson M; Båth M; Börjesson S; Kheddache S; Johnsson AA; Månsson LG
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):97-101. PubMed ID: 15933088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Image quality in conventional lumbar spine radiography: evaluation using the post-processing tool Diamond View.
Niemann T; Reisinger C; Ruiz-Lopez L; Bongartz G
Eur J Radiol; 2009 May; 70(2):357-61. PubMed ID: 18339503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Radiographers' perspectives' on Visual Grading Analysis as a scientific method to evaluate image quality.
Precht H; Hansson J; Outzen C; Hogg P; Tingberg A
Radiography (Lond); 2019 Oct; 25 Suppl 1():S14-S18. PubMed ID: 31481182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effect of x-ray tube potential on image quality and patient dose for lumbar spine computed radiography examinations.
Brindhaban A; Al Khalifah K; Al Wathiqi G; Al Ostath H
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2005 Dec; 28(4):216-22. PubMed ID: 16506618
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Automated image analysis of lateral roentgen images of the spine using anatomic models].
Mahnken AH; Kohnen M; Steinberg S; Wein BB; Günther RW
Rofo; 2001 Jun; 173(6):554-7. PubMed ID: 11471297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Clinical evaluation of a new set of image quality criteria for mammography.
Grahn A; Hemdal B; Andersson I; Ruschin M; Thilander-Klang A; Börjesson S; Tingberg A; Mattsson S; Håkansson M; Båth M; Månsson LG; Medin J; Wanninger F; Panzer W
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):389-94. PubMed ID: 15933143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Optimising automatic exposure control in computed radiography and the impact on patient dose.
Doyle P; Gentle D; Martin CJ
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):236-9. PubMed ID: 15933114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. An evaluation of the effect of tube potential on clinical image quality using direct digital detectors for pelvis and lumbar spine radiographs.
Peacock NE; Steward AL; Riley PJ
J Med Radiat Sci; 2020 Dec; 67(4):260-268. PubMed ID: 32495517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Nodule detection in digital chest radiography: part of image background acting as pure noise.
Båth M; Håkansson M; Börjesson S; Kheddache S; Grahn A; Bochud FO; Verdun FR; Månsson LG
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):102-8. PubMed ID: 15933089
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of technical and anatomical noise in digital thorax X-ray images.
Hoeschen C; Tischenko O; Buhr E; Illers H
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):75-80. PubMed ID: 15933084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Does a combination of dose modulation with fast gantry rotation time limit CT image quality?
Israel GM; Herlihy S; Rubinowitz AN; Cornfeld D; Brink J
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Jul; 191(1):140-4. PubMed ID: 18562737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Optimization of image process parameters through factorial experiments using a flat panel detector.
Norrman E; Geijer H; Persliden J
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Sep; 52(17):5263-76. PubMed ID: 17762085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The use of reference image criteria in X-ray diagnostics: an application for the optimisation of lumbar spine radiographs.
Almén A; Tingberg A; Besjakov J; Mattsson S
Eur Radiol; 2004 Sep; 14(9):1561-7. PubMed ID: 15057564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Quantitative assessment of computed radiography quality control parameters.
Rampado O; Isoardi P; Ropolo R
Phys Med Biol; 2006 Mar; 51(6):1577-93. PubMed ID: 16510964
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Reduction of anatomical noise in medical X-ray images.
Tischenko O; Hoeschen C; Buhr E
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):69-74. PubMed ID: 15933083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Method of simulating dose reduction for digital radiographic systems.
Båth M; Håkansson M; Tingberg A; Månsson LG
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):253-9. PubMed ID: 15933117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
