Free Access
| Issue |
Radioprotection
Volume 53, Number 2, April-June 2018
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Page(s) | 139 - 144 | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2018012 | |
| Published online | 03 May 2018 | |
- Bacher K, Smeets P, Bonnarens K, De Hauwere A, Verstraete K, Thierens H. 2003. Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography. Am. J. Roentgenol. 181(4): 923–929. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Bliznakova K, Bliznakov Z, Bravou V, Kolitsi Z, Pallikarakis N. 2003. A three-dimensional breast software phantom for mammography simulation. Phys. Med. Biol. 48(22): 3699. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fink C, Hallscheidt PJ, Noeldge G, Kampschulte A, Radeleff B, Hosch WP, Kauffmann GW, Hansmann J. 2002. Clinical comparative study with a large-area amorphous silicon flat-panel detector: image quality and visibility of anatomic structures on chest radiography. Am. J. Roentgenol. 178(2): 481–486. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Fischbach F, Ricke J, Freund T, Werk M, Spors B, Baumann C, Pech M, Felix R. 2002. Flat panel digital radiography compared with storage phosphor computed radiography: assessment of dose versus image quality in phantom studies. Invest. Radiol. 37(11): 609–614. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fischmann A, Siegmann K, Wersebe A, Claussen C, Muller-Schimpfle M. 2005. Comparison of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography: image quality and lesion detection. Br. J. Radiol. 78(928): 312–315. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hess R, Neitzel U. 2011. Optimizing image quality and dose in digital radiography of pediatric extremities [Internet]. Philips Healthcare. Available from http://www.healthcare.philips.com/main/about/events/rsna/pdfs/DR_White_paper_Optimizing_image_quality_and_dose_in_digital_radiography_of_pediatric_extremities.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- Hess R, Neitzel U. 2012. Optimizing image quality and dose for digital radiography of distal pediatric extremities using the contrast-to-noise ratio. Rofo 184(7): 643–649. [Google Scholar]
- Khong P, Ringertz H, Donoghue V, Frush D, Rehani M, Appelgate K, Sanchez R. 2013. ICRP publication 121: radiological protection in paediatric diagnostic and interventional radiology. Ann. ICRP 42(2): 1–63. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Lu Z, Nickoloff E, So J, Dutta A. 2003. Comparison of computed radiography and film/screen combination using a contrast-detail phantom. J. Appl. Clin. Med. Phys. 4(1): 91–98. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mori M, Imai K, Ikeda M, Iida Y, Ito F, Yoneda K, Enchi Y. 2013. Method of measuring contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) in nonuniform image area in digital radiography. Electron. Commun. Jpn. 96(7): 32–41. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Muhogora W, Padovani R, Msaki P. 2011. Initial quality performance results using a phantom to simulate chest computed radiography. J. Med. Phys./Assoc. Med. Phys. India 36(1): 22. [Google Scholar]
- Nahangi H, Chaparian A. 2015. Assessment of radiation risk to pediatric patients undergoing conventional X-ray examinations. Radioprotection 50(1): 19–25. [CrossRef] [EDP Sciences] [Google Scholar]
- Saarakkala S, Nironen K, Hermunen H, Aarnio J, Heikkinen J. 2009. Comprehensive optimization process of paranasal sinus radiography. Acta Radiol. 50(3): 327–333. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Strotzer M, Völk M, Fründ Rd, Hamer O, Zorger N, Feuerbach S. 2002. Routine chest radiography using a flat-panel detector: image quality at standard detector dose and 33% dose reduction. Am. J. Roentgenol. 178(1): 169–171. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Sun Z, Lin C, Tyan Y, Ng K-H. 2012. Optimization of chest radiographic imaging parameters: a comparison of image quality and entrance skin dose for digital chest radiography systems. Clin. Imaging 36(4): 279–286. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.