158 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16511674)
21. A comparison of film-screen, CR and DR: a community hospital time-motion study.
Mehta M; Lee T
Radiol Manage; 2003; 25(6):38-42. PubMed ID: 14699926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. New developed DR detector performs radiographs of hand, pelvic and premature chest anatomies at a lower radiation dose and/or a higher image quality.
Precht H; Tingberg A; Waaler D; Outzen CB
J Digit Imaging; 2014 Feb; 27(1):68-76. PubMed ID: 24221693
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. High kilovoltage digital exposure techniques and patient dosimetry.
Fauber TL; Cohen TF; Dempsey MC
Radiol Technol; 2011; 82(6):501-10. PubMed ID: 21771934
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Dose levels from thoracic and pelvic examinations in two pediatric radiological departments in Norway - a comparison study of dose-area product and radiographic technique.
Sæther HK; Lagesen B; Trægde Martinsen AC; Holsen EP; Øvrebø KM
Acta Radiol; 2010 Dec; 51(10):1137-42. PubMed ID: 20860497
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. A comparison of radiation dose in examination of the abdomen using different radiological imaging techniques.
Marshall NW; Faulkner K; Busch HP; Marsh DM; Pfenning H
Br J Radiol; 1994 May; 67(797):478-84. PubMed ID: 8193895
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. An investigation into the radiation dose associated with different imaging systems for chest radiology.
Marshall NW; Faulkner K; Busch HP; Marsh DM; Pfenning H
Br J Radiol; 1994 Apr; 67(796):353-9. PubMed ID: 8173876
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography at different exposure doses versus mammography film: possibility of radiation dose reduction in detecting rheumatologic bone defects.
Zähringer M; Reineck S; Perniok A; Krüger K; Andermahr J; Rubbert A; Winnekendonk G
Acta Radiol; 2008 Mar; 49(2):157-66. PubMed ID: 18300139
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Solid-state, flat-panel, digital radiography detectors and their physical imaging characteristics.
Cowen AR; Kengyelics SM; Davies AG
Clin Radiol; 2008 May; 63(5):487-98. PubMed ID: 18374710
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Assessment of the problem: pediatric doses in screen-film and digital radiography.
Huda W
Pediatr Radiol; 2004 Oct; 34 Suppl 3():S173-82; discussion S234-41. PubMed ID: 15558259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Status and prospects of digital detector technology for CR and DR.
Neitzel U
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):32-8. PubMed ID: 15933078
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. A comparative study of adult patient doses in film screen and computed radiography in some Sudanese hospitals.
Elshiekh E; Suliman II; Habbani F
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):402-5. PubMed ID: 25889604
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Optimisation of radiological protocols for chest imaging using computed radiography and flat-panel X-ray detectors.
Compagnone G; Casadio Baleni M; Di Nicola E; Valentino M; Benati M; Calzolaio LF; Oberhofer N; Fabbri E; Domenichelli S; Barozzi L
Radiol Med; 2013 Jun; 118(4):540-54. PubMed ID: 23090253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Performance comparison of an active matrix flat panel imager, computed radiography system, and a screen-film system at four standard radiation qualities.
Monnin P; Gutierrez D; Bulling S; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
Med Phys; 2005 Feb; 32(2):343-50. PubMed ID: 15789578
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. [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]
35. 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]
36. A comparison of conventional screen-film radiography and hard copy of computed radiography in full and two-thirds sizes in detection of interstitial lung disease.
Kondoh H; Ikezoe J; Inamura K; Kuroda C; Kozuka T
J Digit Imaging; 1994 Nov; 7(4):193-5. PubMed ID: 7858016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Comparative study between mobile computed radiography and mobile flat-panel radiography for bedside chest radiography: impact of an antiscatter grid on the visibility of selected diagnostically relevant structures.
Lehnert T; Naguib NN; Wutzler S; Bauer RW; Kerl JM; Burkhard T; Schulz B; Larson MC; Ackermann H; Vogl TJ; Balzer JO
Invest Radiol; 2014 Jan; 49(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 24019019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Evaluation of dose-area product of common radiographic examinations towards establishing a preliminary diagnostic reference levels (PDRLs) in Southwestern Nigeria.
Jibiri NN; Olowookere CJ
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2016 Nov; 17(6):392-404. PubMed ID: 27929511
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Single-exposure conventional and computed radiography image acquisition.
Chotas HG; Dobbins JT; Floyd CE; Ravin CE
Invest Radiol; 1991 May; 26(5):438-45. PubMed ID: 2055742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Comparison of doses for bedside examinations of the chest with conventional screen-film and computed radiography: results of a randomized controlled trial.
Weatherburn GC; Bryan S; Davies JG
Radiology; 2000 Dec; 217(3):707-12. PubMed ID: 11110932
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
