140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30251707)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Neonatal chest radiography: Influence of standard clinical protocols and radiographic equipment on pathology visibility and radiation dose using a neonatal chest phantom.
Al-Murshedi S; Peter Hogg ; England A
Radiography (Lond); 2020 Nov; 26(4):282-287. PubMed ID: 32169312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
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. 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]
9. A framework for optimising the radiographic technique in digital X-ray imaging.
Samei E; Dobbins JT; Lo JY; Tornai MP
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):220-9. PubMed ID: 15933112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Automatic image quality evaluation in digital radiography using for-processing and for-presentation images.
Tsalafoutas IA; AlKhazzam S; Tsapaki V; Kharita MH
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2024 Apr; 25(4):e14285. PubMed ID: 38317593
[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. Visual grading analysis of digital neonatal chest phantom X-ray images: Impact of detector type, dose and image processing on image quality.
Smet MH; Breysem L; Mussen E; Bosmans H; Marshall NW; Cockmartin L
Eur Radiol; 2018 Jul; 28(7):2951-2959. PubMed ID: 29460076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Evaluation of X-ray table mattresses for radiation attenuation and impact on image quality.
Alresheedi N; Walton L; Hogg P; Webb J; Tootell A
Radiography (Lond); 2021 Feb; 27(1):215-220. PubMed ID: 33183977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Optimisation of radiation dose and image quality in mobile neonatal chest radiography.
Hinojos-Armendáriz VI; Mejía-Rosales SJ; Franco-Cabrera MC
Radiography (Lond); 2018 May; 24(2):104-109. PubMed ID: 29605105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evaluating radiographic parameters for mobile chest computed radiography: phantoms, image quality and effective dose.
Rill LN; Brateman L; Arreola M
Med Phys; 2003 Oct; 30(10):2727-35. PubMed ID: 14596311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Radiation dose levels for conventional chest and abdominal X-ray procedures in elected hospitals in Sudan.
Babikir E; Hasan HA; Abdelrazig A; Alkhorayef MA; Manssor E; Sulieman A
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):102-6. PubMed ID: 25852182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Modifications to mobile chest radiography technique during the COVID-19 pandemic - implications of X-raying through side room windows.
England A; Littler E; Romani S; Cosson P
Radiography (Lond); 2021 Feb; 27(1):193-199. PubMed ID: 32855021
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
