142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33969425)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. CAN SCATTER CORRECTION SOFTWARE REPLACE A GRID IN DR PELVIC EXAMINATIONS?
Precht H; Mørup SD; Tingberg A; Outzen CB; Kusk KW; Nielsen RM; Midtgård M; Winther MB; Waaler D; Kusk MW
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2019 Dec; 187(1):8-16. PubMed ID: 31111927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. New developed DR detector performs radiographs of hand, pelvic and premature chest anatomies at a lower radiation dose and/or a higher image quality.
Precht H; Tingberg A; Waaler D; Outzen CB
J Digit Imaging; 2014 Feb; 27(1):68-76. PubMed ID: 24221693
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Digital radiography: optimization of image quality and dose using multi-frequency software.
Precht H; Gerke O; Rosendahl K; Tingberg A; Waaler D
Pediatr Radiol; 2012 Sep; 42(9):1112-8. PubMed ID: 22526280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. [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]
11. 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]
12. Varied tube potential with constant effective dose at lumbar spine radiography using a flat-panel digital detector.
Geijer H; Persliden J
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):240-5. PubMed ID: 15933115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Air gap technique is recommended in axiolateral hip radiographs.
Kivistö S; Kotiaho A; Henner A; Nevala T; Niinimäki J; Nieminen MT; Hanni M
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2020 Oct; 21(10):210-217. PubMed ID: 32959511
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. Performance of automatic exposure control on dose and image quality: comparison between slot-scanning and flat-panel digital radiography systems.
Boissonnat G; Morichau-Beauchant P; Reshef A; Villa C; Désauté P; Simon AC
Med Phys; 2023 Feb; 50(2):1162-1184. PubMed ID: 36069636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
