215 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30809672)
1. COMPARISON OF RADIATION EXPOSURE TO THE PATIENT AND CONTRAST DETAIL RESOLUTIONS ACROSS LOW DOSE 2D/3D SLOT SCANNER AND TWO CONVENTIONAL DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY X-RAY IMAGING SYSTEMS.
Abdi AJ; Mussmann B; Mackenzie A; Klaerke B; Andersen PE
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2019 Dec; 185(2):252-265. PubMed ID: 30809672
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Visual Evaluation of Image Quality of a Low Dose 2D/3D Slot Scanner Imaging System Compared to Two Conventional Digital Radiography X-ray Imaging Systems.
Abdi AJ; Mussmann B; Mackenzie A; Gerke O; Jørgensen GM; Bechsgaard TE; Jensen J; Olsen LB; Andersen PE
Diagnostics (Basel); 2021 Oct; 11(10):. PubMed ID: 34679630
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Quantitative Image Quality Metrics of the Low-Dose 2D/3D Slot Scanner Compared to Two Conventional Digital Radiography X-ray Imaging Systems.
Abdi AJ; Mussmann BR; Mackenzie A; Gerke O; Klaerke B; Andersen PE
Diagnostics (Basel); 2021 Sep; 11(9):. PubMed ID: 34574041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Comparison of scatter rejection and low-contrast performance of scan equalization digital radiography (SEDR), slot-scan digital radiography, and full-field digital radiography systems for chest phantom imaging.
Liu X; Shaw CC; Lai CJ; Wang T
Med Phys; 2011 Jan; 38(1):23-33. PubMed ID: 21361171
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Performance evaluation of an 85-cm-bore X-ray computed tomography scanner designed for radiation oncology and comparison with current diagnostic CT scanners.
Garcia-Ramirez JL; Mutic S; Dempsey JF; Low DA; Purdy JA
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2002 Mar; 52(4):1123-31. PubMed ID: 11958910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Organ doses evaluation for chest computed tomography procedures with TL dosimeters: Comparison with Monte Carlo simulations.
Giansante L; Martins JC; Nersissian DY; Kiers KC; Kay FU; Sawamura MVY; Lee C; Gebrim EMMS; Costa PR
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2019 Jan; 20(1):308-320. PubMed ID: 30508315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Comparison of image quality among three X-ray systems for chest radiography: first step in optimisation.
Nocetti D; Ubeda C; Calcagno S; Acevedo J; Pardo D
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):386-91. PubMed ID: 25821212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Optimisation of radiological protocols for chest imaging using computed radiography and flat-panel X-ray detectors.
Compagnone G; Casadio Baleni M; Di Nicola E; Valentino M; Benati M; Calzolaio LF; Oberhofer N; Fabbri E; Domenichelli S; Barozzi L
Radiol Med; 2013 Jun; 118(4):540-54. PubMed ID: 23090253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Contrast-detail evaluation and dose assessment of eight digital chest radiography systems in clinical practice.
Veldkamp WJ; Kroft LJ; Boot MV; Mertens BJ; Geleijns J
Eur Radiol; 2006 Feb; 16(2):333-41. PubMed ID: 16132918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Radiation exposure of children in pediatric radiology. Part 4: Entrance doses achieved during the X-ray examination of the chest].
Seidenbusch MC; Schneider K
Rofo; 2008 Dec; 180(12):1082-103. PubMed ID: 19009497
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Mathematical modelling of scanner-specific bowtie filters for Monte Carlo CT dosimetry.
Kramer R; Cassola VF; Andrade ME; de Araújo MW; Brenner DJ; Khoury HJ
Phys Med Biol; 2017 Feb; 62(3):781-809. PubMed ID: 28072578
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Assessment of PCXMC for patients with different body size in chest and abdominal x ray examinations: a Monte Carlo simulation study.
Borrego D; Lowe EM; Kitahara CM; Lee C
Phys Med Biol; 2018 Mar; 63(6):065015. PubMed ID: 29465419
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Image quality and exposure dose in digital projection radiography].
Busch HP; Busch S; Decker C; Schilz C
Rofo; 2003 Jan; 175(1):32-7. PubMed ID: 12525978
[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. Contrast-detail phantom study for x-ray spectrum optimization regarding chest radiography using a cesium iodide-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector.
Hamer OW; Völk M; Zorger N; Borisch I; Büttner R; Feuerbach S; Strotzer M
Invest Radiol; 2004 Oct; 39(10):610-8. PubMed ID: 15377940
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparing Dose-Length Product-Based and Monte Carlo Simulation Organ-Based Calculations of Effective Dose in 16- and 64-MDCT Examinations Using Automatic Tube Current Modulation.
Haji-Momenian S; Ellenbogen A; Khati N; Taffel M; Earls J; Miller G; Zeman RK
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Mar; 210(3):583-592. PubMed ID: 29381379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
