These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37187066)

  • 1. The radiation dose, clinical and anatomical implications of erect lumbar spine radiography: A single centre pre-post implementation evaluation.
    Bradley C; Snaith B
    Radiography (Lond); 2023 Jul; 29(4):690-696. PubMed ID: 37187066
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Supine and erect abdominal radiography: A comparison of radiation dose and image quality.
    Alzyoud K; Al-Murshedi S; Abualkhael K; Alqawasmeh F; England A
    Appl Radiat Isot; 2022 Dec; 190():110477. PubMed ID: 36195039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparison of anteroposterior and posteroanterior projection in lumbar spine radiography.
    Alukic E; Skrk D; Mekis N
    Radiol Oncol; 2018 May; 52(4):468-474. PubMed ID: 30511934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Vertical instability in spondylolisthesis: a traction radiographic assessment technique and the principle of management.
    Luk KD; Chow DH; Holmes A
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2003 Apr; 28(8):819-27. PubMed ID: 12698127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Comparing the supine and erect pelvis radiographic examinations: an evaluation of anatomy, image quality and radiation dose.
    Flintham K; Alzyoud K; England A; Hogg P; Snaith B
    Br J Radiol; 2021 Jul; 94(1123):20210047. PubMed ID: 33989034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Lumbar spine radiographs - is it time for widespread adoption of posteroanterior projection?
    Green C; Karnati G; Thomson K; Subramanian A
    Br J Radiol; 2019 Nov; 92(1103):20190386. PubMed ID: 31356113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Erect pelvic radiography with fat tissue displacement: Impact on radiation dose and image quality.
    Trozic S; England A; Mekis N
    Radiography (Lond); 2023 May; 29(3):546-551. PubMed ID: 36934682
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The radiation exposure associated with cervical and lumbar spine radiographs.
    Simpson AK; Whang PG; Jonisch A; Haims A; Grauer JN
    J Spinal Disord Tech; 2008 Aug; 21(6):409-12. PubMed ID: 18679095
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. How does a non-optimal tube potential influence radiation dose to the patient in lumbar spine radiography?
    Alukic E; Mekis N
    Radiography (Lond); 2021 Nov; 27(4):1105-1109. PubMed ID: 34011453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. LUMBAR SPINE RADIOGRAPHY: LOWER ORGAN DOSE WITH THE USE OF PA PROJECTION.
    Alukić E; Mekiš N
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2019 Dec; 186(4):507-512. PubMed ID: 31034550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Optimisation of the lateral lumbar spine projection using an air-gap technique.
    Bellizzi A; Zarb F
    Radiography (Lond); 2020 Aug; 26(3):227-233. PubMed ID: 32052755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. An evaluation of the effect of tube potential on clinical image quality using direct digital detectors for pelvis and lumbar spine radiographs.
    Peacock NE; Steward AL; Riley PJ
    J Med Radiat Sci; 2020 Dec; 67(4):260-268. PubMed ID: 32495517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Clinical utility of postprocessed low-dose radiographs in skeletal imaging.
    Kolck J; Ziegeler K; Walter-Rittel T; Hermann KGA; Hamm B; Beck A
    Br J Radiol; 2022 Feb; 95(1130):20210881. PubMed ID: 34919419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effective dose reduction in spine radiographic imaging by choosing the less radiation-sensitive side of the body.
    Ben-Shlomo A; Bartal G; Mosseri M; Avraham B; Leitner Y; Shabat S
    Spine J; 2016 Apr; 16(4):558-63. PubMed ID: 26704861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. "Anode heel effect" on patient dose in lumbar spine radiography.
    Fung KK; Gilboy WB
    Br J Radiol; 2000 May; 73(869):531-6. PubMed ID: 10884750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Effective dose and image optimisation of lateral lumbar spine radiography: a phantom study.
    Lai ZH; Sá Dos Reis C; Sun Z
    Eur Radiol Exp; 2020 Feb; 4(1):13. PubMed ID: 32056045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Lumbar spine radiology: analysis of the posteroanterior projection.
    Brennan PC; Madigan E
    Eur Radiol; 2000; 10(7):1197-201. PubMed ID: 11003420
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Optimisation of patient dose for the horizontal beam technique in lateral lumbar spine radiographic examinations.
    Davis AT; Hopkins SA
    Br J Radiol; 2013 Jul; 86(1027):20130053. PubMed ID: 23652542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Low dose CT of the lumbar spine compared with radiography: a study on image quality with implications for clinical practice.
    Alshamari M; Geijer M; Norrman E; Lidén M; Krauss W; Wilamowski F; Geijer H
    Acta Radiol; 2016 May; 57(5):602-11. PubMed ID: 26221055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.