131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36345212)
1. Digital radiography image quality evaluation using various phantoms and software.
Tsalafoutas IA; AlKhazzam S; Tsapaki V; AlNaemi H; Kharita MH
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2022 Dec; 23(12):e13823. PubMed ID: 36345212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Automatic image quality evaluation in digital radiography using for-processing and for-presentation images.
Tsalafoutas IA; AlKhazzam S; Tsapaki V; Kharita MH
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2024 Apr; 25(4):e14285. PubMed ID: 38317593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The effect of added filtration on radiation dose and image quality in digital radiography of newborns.
Papadakis AE; Giannakaki V; Hatzidaki E; Damilakis J
Pediatr Radiol; 2023 Sep; 53(10):2060-2068. PubMed ID: 37310445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Evaluation of image quality and patient exposure in fluoroscopy using a phantom: Is there any clinical relevance?
Tsalafoutas IA; Tsapaki V; Triantopoulou I
Eur J Radiol; 2021 May; 138():109607. PubMed ID: 33667936
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. An investigation of flat panel equipment variables on image quality with a dedicated cardiac phantom.
Dragusin O; Bosmans H; Pappas C; Desmet W
Phys Med Biol; 2008 Sep; 53(18):4927-40. PubMed ID: 18711249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Dose optimisation in paediatric radiography - Using regression models to investigate the relative impact of acquisition factors on image quality and radiation dose.
Mohammed Ali A; Hogg P; England A
Phys Med; 2019 Dec; 68():61-68. PubMed ID: 31751806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Optimization of image quality and patient dose in radiographs of paediatric extremities using direct digital radiography.
Jones A; Ansell C; Jerrom C; Honey ID
Br J Radiol; 2015 Jun; 88(1050):20140660. PubMed ID: 25816115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Impact of body part thickness on AP pelvis radiographic image quality and effective dose.
Alzyoud K; Hogg P; Snaith B; Flintham K; England A
Radiography (Lond); 2019 Feb; 25(1):e11-e17. PubMed ID: 30599841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Relationship between body habitus and image quality and radiation dose in chest X-ray examinations: A phantom study.
Al-Murshedi S; Hogg P; England A
Phys Med; 2019 Jan; 57():65-71. PubMed ID: 30738533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Optimisation of exposure parameters using a phantom for thoracic spine radiographs in antero-posterior and lateral views.
Sá Dos Reis C; Caso M; Dolenc L; Howick K; Lemmen R; Meira A; Shatku F; Aymon E; Ghotra SS
Radiography (Lond); 2023 Aug; 29(5):870-877. PubMed ID: 37419047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Effect of radiographic techniques (kVp and mAs) on image quality and patient doses in digital subtraction angiography.
Gkanatsios NA; Huda W; Peters KR
Med Phys; 2002 Aug; 29(8):1643-50. PubMed ID: 12201409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
