171 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19095816)
21. Optimizing image quality and dose for digital radiography of distal pediatric extremities using the contrast-to-noise ratio.
Hess R; Neitzel U
Rofo; 2012 Jul; 184(7):643-9. PubMed ID: 22618480
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. [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]
23. An examination of automatic exposure control regimes for two digital radiography systems.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2009 Aug; 54(15):4645-70. PubMed ID: 19590115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Digital skeletal radiography. Reduction of absorbed dose by adaptation of exposure factors and image processing.
Axelsson B; Petersen U; Wiltz HJ
Acta Radiol; 2001 Nov; 42(6):592-8. PubMed ID: 11736707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Digital radiography of scoliosis with a scanning method: initial evaluation.
Geijer H; Beckman K; Jonsson B; Andersson T; Persliden J
Radiology; 2001 Feb; 218(2):402-10. PubMed ID: 11161153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Radiation dose reduction in scoliosis patients: low-dose full-spine radiography with digital flat panel detector and image stitching system.
Grieser T; Baldauf AQ; Ludwig K
Rofo; 2011 Jul; 183(7):645-9. PubMed ID: 21614741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. The influence of different technique factors on image quality of lumbar spine radiographs as evaluated by established CEC image criteria.
Almén A; Tingberg A; Mattsson S; Besjakov J; Kheddache S; Lanhede B; Månsson LG; Zankl M
Br J Radiol; 2000 Nov; 73(875):1192-9. PubMed ID: 11144797
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. A study and optimization of lumbar spine X-ray imaging systems.
McVey G; Sandborg M; Dance DR; Alm Carlsson G
Br J Radiol; 2003 Mar; 76(903):177-88. PubMed ID: 12684233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. An optimisation strategy in a digital environment applied to neonatal chest imaging.
Hansson J; Båth M; Håkansson M; Grundin H; Bjurklint E; Orvestad P; Kjellström A; Boström H; Jönsson M; Jonsson K; Månsson LG
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):278-85. PubMed ID: 15933122
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. Reduction of absorbed dose in storage phosphor urography by significant lowering of tube voltage and adjustment of image display parameters.
Wiltz HJ; Petersen U; Axelsson B
Acta Radiol; 2005 Jul; 46(4):391-5. PubMed ID: 16134316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. A framework for optimising the radiographic technique in digital X-ray imaging.
Samei E; Dobbins JT; Lo JY; Tornai MP
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):220-9. PubMed ID: 15933112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Super-resolution variable-dose imaging in digital radiography: quality and dose reduction with a fluoroscopic flat-panel detector.
Berliner L; Buffa A
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 2011 Sep; 6(5):663-73. PubMed ID: 21298404
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. The impact of increased Al filtration on x-ray tube loading and image quality in diagnostic radiology.
Behrman RH
Med Phys; 2003 Jan; 30(1):69-78. PubMed ID: 12557981
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Comparison of low-contrast detail perception on storage phosphor radiographs and digital flat panel detector images.
Peer S; Neitzel U; Giacomuzzi SM; Peer R; Gassner E; Steingruber I; Jaschke W
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2001 Mar; 20(3):239-42. PubMed ID: 11341713
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Chest radiography: a comparison of image quality and effective dose using four digital systems.
Pascoal A; Lawinski CP; Mackenzie A; Tabakov S; Lewis CA
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):273-7. PubMed ID: 15933121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Image quality dependency on system configuration and tube voltage in chest tomosynthesis—a visual grading study using an anthropomorphic chest phantom.
Söderman C; Asplund S; Allansdotter Johnsson Å; Vikgren J; Rossi Norrlund R; Molnar D; Svalkvist A; Gunnar Månsson L; Båth M
Med Phys; 2015 Mar; 42(3):1200-12. PubMed ID: 25735275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Amorphous silicon, flat-panel, x-ray detector versus storage phosphor-based computed radiography: contrast-detail phantom study at different tube voltages and detector entrance doses.
Hamer OW; Völk M; Zorger Z; Feuerbach S; Strotzer M
Invest Radiol; 2003 Apr; 38(4):212-20. PubMed ID: 12649645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. 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]
40. [Investigation of beam quality for digital chest radiography with RbBr:Tl(+) photostimulable storage phosphors].
Kawata H
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2003 Sep; 59(9):1174-82. PubMed ID: 14593331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
