142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33969425)
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. Radiographers' Ability to Detect Low-Contrast Detail in Digital Radiography Systems.
Alsleem H; Davidson R
Radiol Technol; 2015; 87(1):29-37. PubMed ID: 26377266
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Evaluating the use of higher kVp and copper filtration as a dose optimisation tool in digital planar radiography.
Mifsud K; Portelli JL; Zarb F; Couto JG
Radiography (Lond); 2022 Aug; 28(3):586-592. PubMed ID: 35504239
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Quality and dose optimization in hand computed radiography.
Pavan ALM; Alves AFF; Duarte SB; Giacomini G; Sardenberg T; Miranda JRA; Pina DR
Phys Med; 2015 Dec; 31(8):1065-1069. PubMed ID: 26148866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
26. Does software optimization influence the radiologists' perception in low dose paediatric pelvic examinations?
Precht H; Waaler D; Outzen CB; Brock Thorsen JB; Steen T; Hellfritzsch MB; Aagesen H; Holst AK; Le P; Lindequist S; Rasmussen L; Tingberg A
Radiography (Lond); 2019 May; 25(2):143-147. PubMed ID: 30955687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Optimizing the tube potential for lumbar spine radiography with a flat-panel digital detector.
Geijer H; Norrman E; Persliden J
Br J Radiol; 2009 Jan; 82(973):62-8. PubMed ID: 19095816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Impact of acquisition parameters on dose and image quality optimisation in paediatric pelvis radiography-A phantom study.
Mohammed Ali A; Hogg P; Abuzaid M; England A
Eur J Radiol; 2019 Sep; 118():130-137. PubMed ID: 31439232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. Gridless adult cervical spine radiography and its' effect on image quality and radiation dose: A phantom study.
Mekis N; Bianchi T; Doyle C; Gauchat M; Geerling I; Linneman J; Staats S; Campeanu C
Radiography (Lond); 2024 Jan; 30(1):359-366. PubMed ID: 38141429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Influence of tube voltage on digitized image qualityof patients exposed to occupational dust: phantoms and clinical studies.
Wang X; Liu D; Xuan X; Duan J; Yuan H
Chin Med J (Engl); 2014; 127(16):2940-4. PubMed ID: 25131232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. [Reduction of radiation dosage by using digital luminescence radiography on a hand phantom].
Heyne JP; Merbold H; Sehner J; Neumann R; Adler R; Freesmeyer M; Kaiser WA
Rofo; 2000 Apr; 172(4):386-90. PubMed ID: 10961225
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. COMPARISON OF WIRELESS DETECTORS FOR DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY SYSTEMS: IMAGE QUALITY AND DOSE.
Mourik JE; van der Tol P; Veldkamp WJ; Geleijns J
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2016 Jun; 169(1-4):303-7. PubMed ID: 26535003
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Optimising image quality and radiation dose for neonatal incubator imaging.
Tugwell-Allsup J; Morris RW; Hibbs R; England A
Radiography (Lond); 2020 Nov; 26(4):e258-e263. PubMed ID: 32279922
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. OPTIMIZING IMAGE QUALITY, RADIATION DOSAGE TO THE PATIENT AND TO THE DETECTOR IN PEDIATRIC CHEST RADIOGRAPHY: A PHANTOM STUDY OF A PORTABLE DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY SYSTEM.
Shahgeldi K; Sjöberg T; Nordström J; Lesanu R; Svahn TM
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2019 Dec; 185(4):414-420. PubMed ID: 30916753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. [Investigation of beam quality for digital chest radiography with RbBr:Tl(+) photostimulable storage phosphors].
Kawata H
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2003 Sep; 59(9):1174-82. PubMed ID: 14593331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Super-resolution variable-dose imaging in digital radiography: quality and dose reduction with a fluoroscopic flat-panel detector.
Berliner L; Buffa A
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg; 2011 Sep; 6(5):663-73. PubMed ID: 21298404
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
