153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32599376)
1. Survey of chest radiography systems: Any link between contrast detail measurements and visual grading analysis?
Rodríguez Pérez S; Marshall NW; Binst J; Coolen J; Struelens L; Bosmans H
Phys Med; 2020 Aug; 76():62-71. PubMed ID: 32599376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
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. 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]
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. 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]
7. 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]
8. Characterization and validation of the thorax phantom Lungman for dose assessment in chest radiography optimization studies.
Rodríguez Pérez S; Marshall NW; Struelens L; Bosmans H
J Med Imaging (Bellingham); 2018 Jan; 5(1):013504. PubMed ID: 29430474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Image quality dependency on system configuration and tube voltage in chest tomosynthesis—a visual grading study using an anthropomorphic chest phantom.
Söderman C; Asplund S; Allansdotter Johnsson Å; Vikgren J; Rossi Norrlund R; Molnar D; Svalkvist A; Gunnar Månsson L; Båth M
Med Phys; 2015 Mar; 42(3):1200-12. PubMed ID: 25735275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Image Quality Evaluation of a Digital Radiography System Made in Thailand.
Techavipoo U; Sinsuebphon N; Prompalit S; Thongvigitmanee S; Narkbuakaew W; Kiang-Ia A; Srivongsa T; Thajchayapong P; Chaumrattanakul U
Biomed Res Int; 2021; 2021():3102673. PubMed ID: 34869760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Optimisation of image plate radiography with respect to tube voltage.
Tingberg A; Sjöström D
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):286-93. PubMed ID: 15933123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Optimization of the chest exposure condition with a contrast-detail phantom: evaluation of the flat-panel versus computed radiography systems].
Kinoshita E; Umezu Y; Ogawa K; Katou T; Arimura H; Yoshikawa H; Higashida Y; Ooki M; Toyofuku F
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2004 Jul; 60(7):969-74. PubMed ID: 15340278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
