These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21191577)
1. Quality assurance: using the exposure index and the deviation index to monitor radiation exposure for portable chest radiographs in neonates. Cohen MD; Cooper ML; Piersall K; Apgar BK Pediatr Radiol; 2011 May; 41(5):592-601. PubMed ID: 21191577 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. New exposure indicators for digital radiography simplified for radiologists and technologists. Don S; Whiting BR; Rutz LJ; Apgar BK AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Dec; 199(6):1337-41. PubMed ID: 23169727 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Quality assurance: a comparison study of radiographic exposure for neonatal chest radiographs at 4 academic hospitals. Cohen MD; Markowitz R; Hill J; Huda W; Babyn P; Apgar B Pediatr Radiol; 2012 Jun; 42(6):668-73. PubMed ID: 22057362 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. [Radiation exposure of children in pediatric radiology. Part 3: Conversion coefficients for reconstruction of organ doses achieved during chest X-ray examinations]. Seidenbusch MC; Regulla D; Schneider K Rofo; 2008 Dec; 180(12):1061-81. PubMed ID: 19235700 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Reduction of patient exposure by the use of digital luminescence radiography]. Seifert H; Chapot C J Radiol; 1999 Nov; 80(11):1555-60. PubMed ID: 10592912 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Optimization of chest radiographic imaging parameters: a comparison of image quality and entrance skin dose for digital chest radiography systems. Sun Z; Lin C; Tyan Y; Ng KH Clin Imaging; 2012; 36(4):279-86. PubMed ID: 22726965 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Scatter radiation from chest radiographs: is there a risk to infants in a typical NICU? Trinh AM; Schoenfeld AH; Levin TL Pediatr Radiol; 2010 May; 40(5):704-7. PubMed ID: 19997727 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Image quality and dose differences caused by vendor-specific image processing of neonatal radiographs. Sensakovic WF; O'Dell MC; Letter H; Kohler N; Rop B; Cook J; Logsdon G; Varich L Pediatr Radiol; 2016 Oct; 46(11):1606-13. PubMed ID: 27488507 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Optimization of the chest exposure condition with a contrast-detail phantom: evaluation of the flat-panel versus computed radiography systems]. Kinoshita E; Umezu Y; Ogawa K; Katou T; Arimura H; Yoshikawa H; Higashida Y; Ooki M; Toyofuku F Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2004 Jul; 60(7):969-74. PubMed ID: 15340278 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Modification of chest radiography exposure parameters using a neonatal chest phantom. Schäfer SB; Papst S; Fiebich M; Rudolph C; de Laffolie J; Krombach GA Pediatr Radiol; 2020 Jan; 50(1):28-37. PubMed ID: 31583441 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A phantom for dose-image quality optimization in chest radiography. Vassileva J Br J Radiol; 2002 Oct; 75(898):837-42. PubMed ID: 12381693 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Chest radiography with a flat-panel detector: image quality with dose reduction after copper filtration. Hamer OW; Sirlin CB; Strotzer M; Borisch I; Zorger N; Feuerbach S; Völk M Radiology; 2005 Nov; 237(2):691-700. PubMed ID: 16192324 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Quality assurance and quality control programme in the Personal Dosimetry Department of the Greek Atomic Energy Commission. Kamenopoulou V; Drikos G; Carinou E; Papadomarkaki E; Askounis P; Kyrgiakou H; Kefalonitis N Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2002; 101(1-4):233-7. PubMed ID: 12382742 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effects of reduced exposure on computed radiography: comparison of nodule detection accuracy with conventional and asymmetric screen-film radiographs of a chest phantom. Kimme-Smith C; Aberle DR; Sayre JW; Hart EM; Greaves SM; Brown K; Young DA; Deseran MD; Johnson T; Johnson SL AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Aug; 165(2):269-73. PubMed ID: 7618538 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Optimal beam quality for chest flat panel detector system: realistic phantom study. Kuwahara C; Aoki T; Oda N; Kawabata J; Sugimoto K; Kobayashi M; Fujii M; Korogi Y Eur Radiol; 2019 Sep; 29(9):4538-4543. PubMed ID: 30737566 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]