136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31481182)
1. Radiographers' perspectives' on Visual Grading Analysis as a scientific method to evaluate image quality.
Precht H; Hansson J; Outzen C; Hogg P; Tingberg A
Radiography (Lond); 2019 Oct; 25 Suppl 1():S14-S18. PubMed ID: 31481182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluation of image quality of lumbar spine images: a comparison between FFE and VGA.
Tingberg A; Båth M; Håkansson M; Medin J; Besjakov J; Sandborg M; Alm-Carlsson G; Mattsson S; Månsson LG
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):53-61. PubMed ID: 15933081
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparing the standard knee X-ray exposure factor, 10 kV rule, and modified 10 kV rule techniques in digital radiography to reduce patient radiation dose without loss of image quality.
Wenman A; Lockwood P
Radiography (Lond); 2024 Mar; 30(2):574-581. PubMed ID: 38295494
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Does software optimization influence the radiologists' perception in low dose paediatric pelvic examinations?
Precht H; Waaler D; Outzen CB; Brock Thorsen JB; Steen T; Hellfritzsch MB; Aagesen H; Holst AK; Le P; Lindequist S; Rasmussen L; Tingberg A
Radiography (Lond); 2019 May; 25(2):143-147. PubMed ID: 30955687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Validation of a candidate instrument to assess image quality in digital mammography using ROC analysis.
Boita J; van Engen RE; Mackenzie A; Tingberg A; Bosmans H; Bolejko A; Zackrisson S; Wallis MG; Ikeda DM; van Ongeval C; Pijnappel R; Broeders M; Sechopoulos I
Eur J Radiol; 2021 Jun; 139():109686. PubMed ID: 33819803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Impact of acquisition parameters on dose and image quality optimisation in paediatric pelvis radiography-A phantom study.
Mohammed Ali A; Hogg P; Abuzaid M; England A
Eur J Radiol; 2019 Sep; 118():130-137. PubMed ID: 31439232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Visual grading characteristics (VGC) analysis: a non-parametric rank-invariant statistical method for image quality evaluation.
Båth M; Månsson LG
Br J Radiol; 2007 Mar; 80(951):169-76. PubMed ID: 16854962
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Radiographers' Ability to Detect Low-Contrast Detail in Digital Radiography Systems.
Alsleem H; Davidson R
Radiol Technol; 2015; 87(1):29-37. PubMed ID: 26377266
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Assessment and optimisation of the image quality of chest-radiography systems.
Redlich U; Hoeschen C; Doehring W
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):264-8. PubMed ID: 15933119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Visual-search observers for assessing tomographic x-ray image quality.
Gifford HC; Liang Z; Das M
Med Phys; 2016 Mar; 43(3):1563-75. PubMed ID: 26936739
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Comparison of four digital and one conventional radiographic image systems for the chest in a patient study with subsequent system optimization].
Redlich U; Hoeschen C; Effenberger O; Fessel A; Preuss H; Reissberg S; Scherlach C; Döhring W
Rofo; 2005 Feb; 177(2):272-8. PubMed ID: 15666237
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of clinical and physical measures of image quality in chest and pelvis computed radiography at different tube voltages.
Sandborg M; Tingberg A; Ullman G; Dance DR; Alm Carlsson G
Med Phys; 2006 Nov; 33(11):4169-75. PubMed ID: 17153395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Computing eye gaze metrics for the automatic assessment of radiographer performance during X-ray image interpretation.
McLaughlin L; Bond R; Hughes C; McConnell J; McFadden S
Int J Med Inform; 2017 Sep; 105():11-21. PubMed ID: 28750903
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Optimisation of the lateral lumbar spine projection using an air-gap technique.
Bellizzi A; Zarb F
Radiography (Lond); 2020 Aug; 26(3):227-233. PubMed ID: 32052755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Using breast radiographers' reports as a second opinion for radiologists' readings of microcalcifications in digital mammography.
Tanaka R; Takamori M; Uchiyama Y; Nishikawa RM; Shiraishi J
Br J Radiol; 2015 Mar; 88(1047):20140565. PubMed ID: 25536443
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The use of reference image criteria in X-ray diagnostics: an application for the optimisation of lumbar spine radiographs.
Almén A; Tingberg A; Besjakov J; Mattsson S
Eur Radiol; 2004 Sep; 14(9):1561-7. PubMed ID: 15057564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Influence of the characteristic curve on the clinical image quality of lumbar spine and chest radiographs.
Tingberg A; Herrmann C; Lanhede B; Almén A; Sandborg M; McVey G; Mattsson S; Panzer W; Besjakov J; Månsson LG; Kheddache S; Alm Carlsson G; Dance DR; Tylén U; Zankl M
Br J Radiol; 2004 Mar; 77(915):204-15. PubMed ID: 15020361
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A software tool for increased efficiency in observer performance studies in radiology.
Börjesson S; Håkansson M; Båth M; Kheddache S; Svensson S; Tingberg A; Grahn A; Ruschin M; Hemdal B; Mattsson S; Månsson LG
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):45-52. PubMed ID: 15933080
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
