120 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37419047)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Optimisation of the AP abdomen projection for larger patient body thicknesses.
Gatt S; Portelli JL; Zarb F
Radiography (Lond); 2022 Feb; 28(1):107-114. PubMed ID: 34544645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. The impact of X-ray scatter correction software on abdomen radiography in terms of image quality and radiation dose.
Sayed M; Knapp KM; Fulford J; Heales C; Alqahtani SJ
Radiography (Lond); 2024 May; 30(4):1125-1135. PubMed ID: 38797045
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Dose optimization in pediatric cardiac x-ray imaging.
Gislason AJ; Davies AG; Cowen AR
Med Phys; 2010 Oct; 37(10):5258-69. PubMed ID: 21089760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. PATIENT DOSE ASSESSMENT AND OPTIMISATION OF PELVIC RADIOGRAPHY WITH COMPUTED RADIOGRAPHY SYSTEMS.
Abbeyquaye D; Inkoom S; Hammond NB; Fletcher JJ; Botwe BO
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2021 Aug; 195(1):41-49. PubMed ID: 34320643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Digital pelvic radiography: increasing distance to reduce dose.
Heath R; England A; Ward A; Charnock P; Ward M; Evans P; Harding L
Radiol Technol; 2011; 83(1):20-8. PubMed ID: 21908777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluating the use of anti-scatter grids in adult knee radiography.
Abela N; Guilherme Couto J; Zarb F; Mizzi D
Radiography (Lond); 2022 Aug; 28(3):663-667. PubMed ID: 35623269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
