166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22526280)
1. Digital radiography: optimization of image quality and dose using multi-frequency software.
Precht H; Gerke O; Rosendahl K; Tingberg A; Waaler D
Pediatr Radiol; 2012 Sep; 42(9):1112-8. PubMed ID: 22526280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. OPTIMIZING IMAGE QUALITY, RADIATION DOSAGE TO THE PATIENT AND TO THE DETECTOR IN PEDIATRIC CHEST RADIOGRAPHY: A PHANTOM STUDY OF A PORTABLE DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY SYSTEM.
Shahgeldi K; Sjöberg T; Nordström J; Lesanu R; Svahn TM
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2019 Dec; 185(4):414-420. PubMed ID: 30916753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Does software optimization influence the radiologists' perception in low dose paediatric pelvic examinations?
Precht H; Waaler D; Outzen CB; Brock Thorsen JB; Steen T; Hellfritzsch MB; Aagesen H; Holst AK; Le P; Lindequist S; Rasmussen L; Tingberg A
Radiography (Lond); 2019 May; 25(2):143-147. PubMed ID: 30955687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL HAND EXAMINATION ON SIX OPTIMISED DR SYSTEMS.
Precht H; Outzen CB; Kusk MW; Bisgaard M; Waaler D
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2021 May; 194(1):27-35. PubMed ID: 33969425
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Image quality and radiation dose in planar imaging - Image quality figure of merits from the CDRAD phantom.
Konst B; Weedon-Fekjaer H; Båth M
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2019 Jul; 20(7):151-159. PubMed ID: 31152576
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Grid removal and impact on population dose in full-field digital mammography.
Gennaro G; Katz L; Souchay H; Klausz R; Alberelli C; di Maggio C
Med Phys; 2007 Feb; 34(2):547-55. PubMed ID: 17388172
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Lens dose in routine head CT: comparison of different optimization methods with anthropomorphic phantoms.
Nikupaavo U; Kaasalainen T; Reijonen V; Ahonen SM; Kortesniemi M
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Jan; 204(1):117-23. PubMed ID: 25539246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Optimizing the tube potential for lumbar spine radiography with a flat-panel digital detector.
Geijer H; Norrman E; Persliden J
Br J Radiol; 2009 Jan; 82(973):62-8. PubMed ID: 19095816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Image quality, threshold contrast and mean glandular dose in CR mammography.
Jakubiak RR; Gamba HR; Neves EB; Peixoto JE
Phys Med Biol; 2013 Sep; 58(18):6565-83. PubMed ID: 24002695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Effects of radiographic techniques on the low-contrast detail detectability performance of digital radiography systems.
Alsleem H; U P; Mong KS; Davidson R
Radiol Technol; 2014; 85(6):614-22. PubMed ID: 25002641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Performance of automatic exposure control on dose and image quality: comparison between slot-scanning and flat-panel digital radiography systems.
Boissonnat G; Morichau-Beauchant P; Reshef A; Villa C; Désauté P; Simon AC
Med Phys; 2023 Feb; 50(2):1162-1184. PubMed ID: 36069636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Pediatric thoracic CT angiography at 70 kV: a phantom study to investigate the effects on image quality and radiation dose.
MacDougall RD; Kleinman PL; Yu L; Lee EY
Pediatr Radiol; 2016 Jul; 46(8):1114-9. PubMed ID: 26987734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Ultra-high pitch chest computed tomography at 70 kVp tube voltage in an anthropomorphic pediatric phantom and non-sedated pediatric patients: Initial experience with 3
Hagelstein C; Henzler T; Haubenreisser H; Meyer M; Sudarski S; Schoenberg SO; Neff KW; Weis M
Z Med Phys; 2016 Dec; 26(4):349-361. PubMed ID: 26702762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
