153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32599376)
21. 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]
22. 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]
23. Neonatal digital chest radiography- should we be using additional copper filtration?
Tugwell-Allsup JR; Morris RW; Thomas K; Hibbs R; England A
Br J Radiol; 2022 Feb; 95(1130):20211026. PubMed ID: 34797726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. A phantom for dose-image quality optimization in chest radiography.
Vassileva J
Br J Radiol; 2002 Oct; 75(898):837-42. PubMed ID: 12381693
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. AMBER and conventional chest radiography: comparison of radiation dose and image quality.
Geleijns J; Broerse JJ; Julius HW; Vrooman HA; Zoetelief J; Zweers D; Kool LJ
Radiology; 1992 Dec; 185(3):719-23. PubMed ID: 1438752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. [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]
28. [Relationship between Radiation Quality and Image Quality in Digital Chest Radiography: Validation Study Using Human Soft Tissue-equivalent Phantom].
Kawashima H; Ichikawa K; Kunitomo H
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2021; 77(3):255-262. PubMed ID: 33746173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Proper Management of the Clinical Exposure Index Based on Body Thickness Using Dose Optimization Tools in Digital Chest Radiography: A Phantom Study.
Yoon Y; Park H; Kim J; Kim J; Roh Y; Tanaka N; Morishita J
Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2021 May; 18(10):. PubMed ID: 34068390
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Initial data from an experiment to implement a safe procedure to perform PA erect chest radiographs for COVID-19 patients with a mobile radiographic system in a "clean" zone of the hospital ward.
Sng LH; Arlany L; Toh LC; Loo TY; Ilzam NS; Wong BSS; Lanca L
Radiography (Lond); 2021 Feb; 27(1):48-53. PubMed ID: 32517970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. An examination of automatic exposure control regimes for two digital radiography systems.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2009 Aug; 54(15):4645-70. PubMed ID: 19590115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Quality control phantom for digital chest radiography.
Chotas HG; Floyd CE; Johnson GA; Ravin CE
Radiology; 1997 Jan; 202(1):111-6. PubMed ID: 8988199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Image quality and dose differences caused by vendor-specific image processing of neonatal radiographs.
Sensakovic WF; O'Dell MC; Letter H; Kohler N; Rop B; Cook J; Logsdon G; Varich L
Pediatr Radiol; 2016 Oct; 46(11):1606-13. PubMed ID: 27488507
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. 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]
36. 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]
37. Comparison of a contrast-to-noise ratio-driven exposure control and a regular detector dose-driven exposure control in abdominal imaging in a clinical angiography system.
Werncke T; Kemling M; Tashenov S; Hinrichs JB; Meine TC; Maschke SK; Kyriakou Y; Wacker FK; Meyer BC
Med Phys; 2021 Dec; 48(12):7641-7656. PubMed ID: 34651705
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Effective dose and image quality for different patient sizes during AP upper abdominal radiography: A phantom study.
Alzyoud K; Al-Murshedi S; England A
Appl Radiat Isot; 2023 Dec; 202():111060. PubMed ID: 37806283
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Digital chest radiography with a solid-state flat-panel x-ray detector: contrast-detail evaluation with processed images printed on film hard copy.
Chotas HG; Ravin CE
Radiology; 2001 Mar; 218(3):679-82. PubMed ID: 11230639
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
