126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33158751)
1. 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]
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. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Mobile chest imaging of neonates in incubators: Optimising DR and CR acquisitions.
Tugwell-Allsup J; Kenworthy D; England A
Radiography (Lond); 2021 Feb; 27(1):75-80. PubMed ID: 32636056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effect of comfort pads and incubator design on neonatal radiography.
Jiang X; Baad M; Reiser I; Feinstein KA; Lu Z
Pediatr Radiol; 2016 Jan; 46(1):112-8. PubMed ID: 26335424
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. To repeat or not to repeat: Radiologists demonstrated more decisiveness than their fellow radiographers in reducing the repeat rate during mobile chest radiography.
Saade C; Siblini L; Karout L; Khalife S; Hilal H; Abbas S; Salman R; Naffaa L
Radiography (Lond); 2021 May; 27(2):304-309. PubMed ID: 33023812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
