139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33062611)
1. 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]
2. Effects of radiographic techniques on the low-contrast detail detectability performance of digital radiography systems.
Alsleem H; U P; Mong KS; Davidson R
Radiol Technol; 2014; 85(6):614-22. PubMed ID: 25002641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Effect of high- and low-energy entrance surface dose allocation ratio for two-shot dual-energy subtraction imaging on low-contrast resolution.
Kanzaki Y; Kuramoto T; Takarabe S; Shibayama Y; Yoshikawa H; Kato T
Radiography (Lond); 2023 Jan; 29(1):240-246. PubMed ID: 36608378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Flat panel digital radiography compared with storage phosphor computed radiography: assessment of dose versus image quality in phantom studies.
Fischbach F; Ricke J; Freund T; Werk M; Spors B; Baumann C; Pech MJ; Felix R
Invest Radiol; 2002 Nov; 37(11):609-14. PubMed ID: 12393973
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Comparison of indirect CsI/a:Si and direct a:Se digital radiography. An assessment of contrast and detail visualization.
Fischbach F; Freund T; Pech M; Werk M; Bassir C; Stoever B; Felix R; Ricke J
Acta Radiol; 2003 Nov; 44(6):616-21. PubMed ID: 14616206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. [Derivation of Conversion Formula of Image Quality Figure (IQF
Nagami A; Ishii R; Kitagawa K; Ishii M; Terazono S; Sanada T; Yoshida A
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2023 Feb; 79(2):121-127. PubMed ID: 36642510
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [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]
20. Digital slot-scan charge-coupled device radiography versus AMBER and Bucky screen-film radiography: comparison of image quality in a phantom study.
Veldkamp WJ; Kroft LJ; Mertens BJ; Geleijns J
Radiology; 2005 Jun; 235(3):857-66. PubMed ID: 15845787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
