507 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17047264)
21. Varied tube potential with constant effective dose at lumbar spine radiography using a flat-panel digital detector.
Geijer H; Persliden J
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):240-5. PubMed ID: 15933115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. An investigation of automatic exposure control calibration for chest imaging with a computed radiography system.
Moore CS; Wood TJ; Avery G; Balcam S; Needler L; Beavis AW; Saunderson JR
Phys Med Biol; 2014 May; 59(9):2307-24. PubMed ID: 24732020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. [Physical imaging properties of a flat panel X-ray detector system].
Yoshida A; Nakamura S; Nishihara S; Kohama C; Takahata A; Fujikawa K
Igaku Butsuri; 2002; 22(4):246-54. PubMed ID: 12766270
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Exposure variability and image quality in computed radiography.
Fauber TL
Radiol Technol; 2009; 80(3):209-15. PubMed ID: 19153197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. Doses under automatic exposure control (AEC) for direct digital radiographic (DDR) X-ray systems.
Bowden L; Faulkner R; Clancy C; Gallagher A; Devine M; Gorman D; O'Reilly G; Dowling A
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Sep; 147(1-2):210-4. PubMed ID: 21937592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Physical image quality comparison of four types of digital detector for chest radiology.
Fernandez JM; Ordiales JM; Guibelalde E; Prieto C; Vano E
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):140-3. PubMed ID: 18283060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Dual-energy cardiac imaging: an image quality and dose comparison for a flat-panel detector and x-ray image intensifier.
Ducote JL; Xu T; Molloi S
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jan; 52(1):183-96. PubMed ID: 17183135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. [Speed S sensitivity of film-screen systems and mode of action of different automatic illumination in general practice. I: Film-screen systems].
Blendl C; Kondmann M; Müller J
Aktuelle Radiol; 1997 Sep; 7(5):288-94. PubMed ID: 9410006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Effects of AEC chamber selection on patient dose and image quality.
Hawking N; Elmore A
Radiol Technol; 2009; 80(5):411-9. PubMed ID: 19457845
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. A conceptual optimisation strategy for radiography in a digital environment.
Båth M; Håkansson M; Hansson J; Månsson LG
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):230-5. PubMed ID: 15933113
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. [Sensitivity S of film-screen systems and mode of operation of different automatic exposure systems in general practice conditions. II: Automatic exposure systems].
Blendl C; Kondmann M; Müller J
Aktuelle Radiol; 1997 Nov; 7(6):333-8. PubMed ID: 9467029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. A factorial experiment on image quality and radiation dose.
Norrman E; Persliden J
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):246-52. PubMed ID: 15933116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Advances in computed radiography systems and their physical imaging characteristics.
Cowen AR; Davies AG; Kengyelics SM
Clin Radiol; 2007 Dec; 62(12):1132-41. PubMed ID: 17981160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Technique charts for Kodak EC-L film screen system for portal localization in a 6MV X-ray beam.
Sandilos P; Antypas C; Paraskevopoulou C; Kouvaris J; Vlachos L
Technol Health Care; 2006; 14(6):467-72. PubMed ID: 17148858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. [Experimental investigations for dose reduction by optimizing the radiation quality for digital mammography with an a-Se detector].
Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Wenkel E; Böhner C; Lell M; Dassel MS; Bautz WA
Rofo; 2007 May; 179(5):487-91. PubMed ID: 17436182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Evaluation and testing of computed radiography systems.
Charnock P; Connolly PA; Hughes D; Moores BM
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):201-7. PubMed ID: 15933109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. A comparison of the performance of modern screen-film and digital mammography systems.
Monnin P; Gutierrez D; Bulling S; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
Phys Med Biol; 2005 Jun; 50(11):2617-31. PubMed ID: 15901958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Quality control measurements for digital x-ray detectors.
Marshall NW; Mackenzie A; Honey ID
Phys Med Biol; 2011 Feb; 56(4):979-99. PubMed ID: 21248386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
