135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23293957)
1. Evaluation of two objective methods to optimize kVp and personnel exposure using a digital indirect flat panel detector and simulated veterinary patients.
Copple C; Robertson ID; Thrall DE; Samei E
Vet Radiol Ultrasound; 2013; 54(1):9-16. PubMed ID: 23293957
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system.
Huda W; Sajewicz AM; Ogden KM; Dance DR
Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):442-8. PubMed ID: 12674245
[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. 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]
7. Dose optimization in pediatric cardiac x-ray imaging.
Gislason AJ; Davies AG; Cowen AR
Med Phys; 2010 Oct; 37(10):5258-69. PubMed ID: 21089760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Optimal multidetector row CT parameters for evaluations of the breast: a phantom and specimen study.
Yi A; Seo BK; Cho PK; Pisano ED; Lee KY; Je BK; Kim HY; Min BW; Son GS
Acad Radiol; 2010 Jun; 17(6):744-51. PubMed ID: 20457417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Optimization of kVp and mAs for pediatric low-dose simulated abdominal CT: is it best to base parameter selection on object circumference?
Reid J; Gamberoni J; Dong F; Davros W
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Oct; 195(4):1015-20. PubMed ID: 20858833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Effect of X-ray tube parameters, iodine concentration, and patient size on image quality in pulmonary computed tomography angiography: a chest-phantom-study.
Szucs-Farkas Z; Verdun FR; von Allmen G; Mini RL; Vock P
Invest Radiol; 2008 Jun; 43(6):374-81. PubMed ID: 18496042
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effective dose efficiency: an application-specific metric of quality and dose for digital radiography.
Samei E; Ranger NT; Dobbins JT; Ravin CE
Phys Med Biol; 2011 Aug; 56(16):5099-118. PubMed ID: 21775791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Effect of radiographic techniques (kVp and mAs) on image quality and patient doses in digital subtraction angiography.
Gkanatsios NA; Huda W; Peters KR
Med Phys; 2002 Aug; 29(8):1643-50. PubMed ID: 12201409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Dose optimization for different medical imaging tasks from exposure index, exposure control factor, and MAS in digital radiography.
Zhang M; Zhao B; Wang Y; Chen W; Hou L
Health Phys; 2012 Sep; 103(3):235-40. PubMed ID: 22850227
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Dual-source CT angiography in aortic stent grafting: An in vitro aorta phantom study of image noise and radiation dose.
Sun Z; Ng C
Acad Radiol; 2010 Jul; 17(7):884-93. PubMed ID: 20447840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluating phantom image quality parameters to optimise patient radiation dose in dental digital radiology.
Gonzalez L; Vano E; Fernandez R; Ziraldo V; Delgado J; Delgado V; Moro J; Ubeda C
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2012 Aug; 151(1):95-101. PubMed ID: 22232776
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effect of beam energy and filtration on the signal-to-noise ratio of the Dexis intraoral X-ray detector.
Kitagawa H; Farman AG
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Jan; 33(1):21-4. PubMed ID: 15140818
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Routine chest radiography using a flat-panel detector: image quality at standard detector dose and 33% dose reduction.
Strotzer M; Völk M; Fründ R; Hamer O; Zorger N; Feuerbach S
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Jan; 178(1):169-71. PubMed ID: 11756114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Contrast-to-noise ratios of different elements in digital mammography: evaluation of their potential as new contrast agents.
Diekmann F; Sommer A; Lawaczeck R; Diekmann S; Pietsch H; Speck U; Hamm B; Bick U
Invest Radiol; 2007 May; 42(5):319-25. PubMed ID: 17414528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Quality and dose optimization in hand computed radiography.
Pavan ALM; Alves AFF; Duarte SB; Giacomini G; Sardenberg T; Miranda JRA; Pina DR
Phys Med; 2015 Dec; 31(8):1065-1069. PubMed ID: 26148866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
