161 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21908777)
1. Digital pelvic radiography: increasing distance to reduce dose.
Heath R; England A; Ward A; Charnock P; Ward M; Evans P; Harding L
Radiol Technol; 2011; 83(1):20-8. PubMed ID: 21908777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Increasing source-to-image distance to reduce radiation dose from digital radiography pelvic examinations.
England A; Evans P; Harding L; Taylor EM; Charnock P; Williams G
Radiol Technol; 2015; 86(3):246-56. PubMed ID: 25739106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. PATIENT DOSE ASSESSMENT AND OPTIMISATION OF PELVIC RADIOGRAPHY WITH COMPUTED RADIOGRAPHY SYSTEMS.
Abbeyquaye D; Inkoom S; Hammond NB; Fletcher JJ; Botwe BO
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2021 Aug; 195(1):41-49. PubMed ID: 34320643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A pilot study investigating two dose reduction techniques for AP lumbar spine radiography using direct dosimetry and Projection VR.
Shanahan MC
Radiography (Lond); 2017 Aug; 23(3):222-228. PubMed ID: 28687290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Dual-energy, standard and low-kVp contrast-enhanced CT-cholangiography: a comparative analysis of image quality and radiation exposure.
Stiller W; Schwarzwaelder CB; Sommer CM; Veloza S; Radeleff BA; Kauczor HU
Eur J Radiol; 2012 Jul; 81(7):1405-12. PubMed ID: 21458939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Dose-image optimisation in digital radiology with a direct digital detector: an example applied to pelvic examinations.
Persliden J; Beckman KW; Geijer H; Andersson T
Eur Radiol; 2002 Jun; 12(6):1584-8. PubMed ID: 12042972
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Ultralow-dose chest computed tomography for pulmonary nodule detection: first performance evaluation of single energy scanning with spectral shaping.
Gordic S; Morsbach F; Schmidt B; Allmendinger T; Flohr T; Husarik D; Baumueller S; Raupach R; Stolzmann P; Leschka S; Frauenfelder T; Alkadhi H
Invest Radiol; 2014 Jul; 49(7):465-73. PubMed ID: 24598443
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Radiation dose and image quality in pediatric CT: effect of technical factors and phantom size and shape.
Siegel MJ; Schmidt B; Bradley D; Suess C; Hildebolt C
Radiology; 2004 Nov; 233(2):515-22. PubMed ID: 15358847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Can the anode heel effect be used to optimise radiation dose and image quality for AP pelvis radiography?
Mraity HAAB; Walton L; England A; Thompson J; Lanca L; Hogg P
Radiography (Lond); 2020 May; 26(2):e103-e108. PubMed ID: 32052763
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Evaluation of automatic exposure control system chamber for the dose optimization when examining pelvic in digital radiography.
Kim SC; Lee HK; Lee YS; Cho JH
J Xray Sci Technol; 2015; 23(3):321-30. PubMed ID: 26410466
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. [A study of optimum radiographic conditions on chest examinations with computed radiology (CR) in conjunction with the offset balance of patient dose and image quality].
Muto H; Mori T; Hayakawa H
Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 2001 May; 61(6):303-9. PubMed ID: 11431936
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. CAN SCATTER CORRECTION SOFTWARE REPLACE A GRID IN DR PELVIC EXAMINATIONS?
Precht H; Mørup SD; Tingberg A; Outzen CB; Kusk KW; Nielsen RM; Midtgård M; Winther MB; Waaler D; Kusk MW
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2019 Dec; 187(1):8-16. PubMed ID: 31111927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Impact of acquisition parameters on dose and image quality optimisation in paediatric pelvis radiography-A phantom study.
Mohammed Ali A; Hogg P; Abuzaid M; England A
Eur J Radiol; 2019 Sep; 118():130-137. PubMed ID: 31439232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Dose optimisation in paediatric radiography - Using regression models to investigate the relative impact of acquisition factors on image quality and radiation dose.
Mohammed Ali A; Hogg P; England A
Phys Med; 2019 Dec; 68():61-68. PubMed ID: 31751806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Patient dose in digital projection radiography.
Compagnone G; Pagan L; Baleni MC; Calzolaio FL; Barozzi L; Bergamini C
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):135-7. PubMed ID: 18252850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The impact of gonad shielding in anteroposterior (AP) pelvis projections in an adult: A phantom study utilising digital radiography (DR).
Davies BH; Manning-Stanley AS; Hughes VJ; Ward AJ
Radiography (Lond); 2020 Aug; 26(3):240-247. PubMed ID: 32089492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Impact of body part thickness on AP pelvis radiographic image quality and effective dose.
Alzyoud K; Hogg P; Snaith B; Flintham K; England A
Radiography (Lond); 2019 Feb; 25(1):e11-e17. PubMed ID: 30599841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Radiation dose in digital chest radiography: comparison among three technologies.
Saiani F; Ghirardi C; Rodella CA; Feroldi P; Chiesa A
Radiol Med; 2004 Apr; 107(4):401-7. PubMed ID: 15103291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparing the standard knee X-ray exposure factor, 10 kV rule, and modified 10 kV rule techniques in digital radiography to reduce patient radiation dose without loss of image quality.
Wenman A; Lockwood P
Radiography (Lond); 2024 Mar; 30(2):574-581. PubMed ID: 38295494
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
