124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26952062)
21. Evaluation of variations in absorbed dose and image noise according to patient forms in X-ray computed tomography.
Matsubara K; Koshida K; Suzuki M; Hayakawa M; Tsujii H; Yamamoto T
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2005 Dec; 61(12):1581-6. PubMed ID: 16395231
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Optimization of radiation exposure and image quality of the cone-beam O-arm intraoperative imaging system in spinal surgery.
Abul-Kasim K; Söderberg M; Selariu E; Gunnarsson M; Kherad M; Ohlin A
J Spinal Disord Tech; 2012 Feb; 25(1):52-8. PubMed ID: 21423057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. A Monte Carlo based method to estimate radiation dose from multidetector CT (MDCT): cylindrical and anthropomorphic phantoms.
DeMarco JJ; Cagnon CH; Cody DD; Stevens DM; McCollough CH; O'Daniel J; McNitt-Gray MF
Phys Med Biol; 2005 Sep; 50(17):3989-4004. PubMed ID: 16177525
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. A study of CT dose distribution in an elliptical phantom and the influence of automatic tube current modulation in the x-y plane.
Sookpeng S; Martin CJ; Gentle DJ
J Radiol Prot; 2013 Jun; 33(2):461-83. PubMed ID: 23676349
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. OVERVIEW, PRACTICAL TIPS AND POTENTIAL PITFALLS OF USING AUTOMATIC EXPOSURE CONTROL IN CT: SIEMENS CARE DOSE 4D.
Söderberg M
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2016 Jun; 169(1-4):84-91. PubMed ID: 26567324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Low-dose chest CT: optimizing radiation protection for patients.
Zhu X; Yu J; Huang Z
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2004 Sep; 183(3):809-16. PubMed ID: 15333374
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Automated low-kilovoltage selection in pediatric computed tomography angiography: phantom study evaluating effects on radiation dose and image quality.
Siegel MJ; Ramirez-Giraldo JC; Hildebolt C; Bradley D; Schmidt B
Invest Radiol; 2013 Aug; 48(8):584-9. PubMed ID: 23563195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Effect of mA Reduction on Image Quality Parameters and Patient Dose in Computed Tomography Imaging.
Saeed RS; Brindhaban A; Al Khalifah KH; Al Enezi OJ
Radiol Technol; 2016; 87(3):271-8. PubMed ID: 26721839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. COMPARISON OF WIRELESS DETECTORS FOR DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY SYSTEMS: IMAGE QUALITY AND DOSE.
Mourik JE; van der Tol P; Veldkamp WJ; Geleijns J
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2016 Jun; 169(1-4):303-7. PubMed ID: 26535003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. The validity and reliability of the exposure index as a metric for estimating the radiation dose to the patient.
Erenstein HG; Browne D; Curtin S; Dwyer RS; Higgins RN; Hommel SF; Menzinga J; Pires Jorge JA; Sauty M; de Vries G; England A
Radiography (Lond); 2020 Oct; 26 Suppl 2():S94-S99. PubMed ID: 32291123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Exposure variability and image quality in computed radiography.
Fauber TL
Radiol Technol; 2009; 80(3):209-15. PubMed ID: 19153197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Reference values for diagnostic radiology: application and impact.
Gray JE; Archer BR; Butler PF; Hobbs BB; Mettler FA; Pizzutiello RJ; Schueler BA; Strauss KJ; Suleiman OH; Yaffe MJ
Radiology; 2005 May; 235(2):354-8. PubMed ID: 15758190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Effect of dose metrics and radiation risk models when optimizing CT x-ray tube voltage.
Huda W; Ogden KM; Khorasani MR
Phys Med Biol; 2008 Sep; 53(17):4719-32. PubMed ID: 18695298
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Measurement of radiotherapy CBCT dose in a phantom using different methods.
Hu N; McLean D
Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2014 Dec; 37(4):779-89. PubMed ID: 25245234
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. 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]
39. 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]
40. The effect of different adaptation strengths on image quality and radiation dose using Siemens Care Dose 4D.
Söderberg M; Gunnarsson M
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010; 139(1-3):173-9. PubMed ID: 20231163
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
