159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29906239)
1. An investigation into the validity of utilising the CDRAD 2.0 phantom for optimisation studies in digital radiography.
Al-Murshedi S; Hogg P; England A
Br J Radiol; 2018 Sep; 91(1089):20180317. PubMed ID: 29906239
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Relationship between the visual evaluation of pathology visibility and the physical measure of low contrast detail detectability in neonatal chest radiography.
Al-Murshedi S; Benhalim M; Alzyoud K; Papathanasiou S; England A
Radiography (Lond); 2022 Nov; 28(4):1116-1121. PubMed ID: 36099681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparative analysis of radiation dose and low contrast detail detectability using routine paediatric chest radiography protocols.
Al-Murshedi S; Hogg P; Meijer A; Erenstein H; England A
Eur J Radiol; 2019 Apr; 113():198-203. PubMed ID: 30927947
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Correlation between physical measurements and observer evaluations of image quality in digital chest radiography.
Yalcin A; Olgar T; Sancak T; Atac GK; Akyar S
Med Phys; 2020 Sep; 47(9):3935-3944. PubMed ID: 32427360
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. A novel method for comparing radiation dose and image quality, between and within different x-ray units in a series of hospitals.
Al-Murshedi S; Hogg P; Lanca L; England A
J Radiol Prot; 2018 Dec; 38(4):1344-1358. PubMed ID: 30251707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Correlation Between Contrast-Detail Analysis and Clinical Image Quality Assessment of Intrapulmonary Lesions in Dual-Energy Subtraction Chest Radiography Using the Two-Shot Method: A Phantom Study.
Kuramoto T; Takarabe S; Kanzaki Y; Shibayama Y; Yamasaki Y; Kitamura Y
Acad Radiol; 2024 May; 31(5):2118-2127. PubMed ID: 38008645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The influence of a novel edge enhancement software on image quality of DR hand images of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Outzen CB; Maron D; Nissen J; Munk J; Grau LM; Juhl D; Precht H
Radiography (Lond); 2021 Aug; 27(3):877-882. PubMed ID: 33676836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Effect of varying X-ray tube voltage and additional filtration on image quality and patient dose in digital radiography system.
E A; A Y; T O
Appl Radiat Isot; 2023 Sep; 199():110893. PubMed ID: 37321050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Introduction of a New Parameter for Evaluation of Digital Radiography System Performance.
Choopani MR; Chaparian A
J Med Signals Sens; 2020; 10(3):196-200. PubMed ID: 33062611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Impact of Software Parameter Settings on Image Quality of Virtual Grid Processed Radiography Images: A Contrast-Detail Phantom Study.
Gossye T; Smeets PV; Achten E; Bacher K
Invest Radiol; 2020 Jun; 55(6):374-380. PubMed ID: 31985603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Effects of body part thickness on low-contrast detail detection and radiation dose during adult chest radiography.
Al-Murshedi S; Alzyoud K; Benhalim M; Alresheedi N; Papathanasiou S; England A
J Med Radiat Sci; 2024 Mar; 71(1):85-90. PubMed ID: 38050453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Image quality of bedside chest radiographs in intensive care beds with integrated detector tray: A phantom study.
Enevoldsen S; Kusk MW
Radiography (Lond); 2021 May; 27(2):453-458. PubMed ID: 33158751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of image quality in chest, hip and pelvis examinations between mobile equipment in nursing homes and static indirect radiography equipment in the hospital.
Precht H; Hansen DL; Ring-Pedersen BM; Møller Hansen LF; Waaler D; Tingberg A; Midtgaard M; Jensen Ohlsen MG; Juhl Hankelbjerg ST; Ravn P; Jensen IE; Christensen JK; Blackburn Andersen PA
Radiography (Lond); 2020 May; 26(2):e31-e37. PubMed ID: 32052778
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Relationship between body habitus and image quality and radiation dose in chest X-ray examinations: A phantom study.
Al-Murshedi S; Hogg P; England A
Phys Med; 2019 Jan; 57():65-71. PubMed ID: 30738533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of indirect CsI/a:Si and direct a:Se digital radiography. An assessment of contrast and detail visualization.
Fischbach F; Freund T; Pech M; Werk M; Bassir C; Stoever B; Felix R; Ricke J
Acta Radiol; 2003 Nov; 44(6):616-21. PubMed ID: 14616206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Derivation of Conversion Formula of Image Quality Figure (IQF
Nagami A; Ishii R; Kitagawa K; Ishii M; Terazono S; Sanada T; Yoshida A
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2023 Feb; 79(2):121-127. PubMed ID: 36642510
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Correlation of contrast-detail analysis and clinical image quality assessment in chest radiography with a human cadaver study.
De Crop A; Bacher K; Van Hoof T; Smeets PV; Smet BS; Vergauwen M; Kiendys U; Duyck P; Verstraete K; D'Herde K; Thierens H
Radiology; 2012 Jan; 262(1):298-304. PubMed ID: 22056687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
