Free Access
This article has a note: [https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2019017]


Issue
Radioprotection
Volume 54, Number 2, April–June 2019
Page(s) 103 - 109
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2019016
Published online 13 May 2019
  • Alexander M, Oliff M, Olorunsola O, Brus-Ramer M, Nickoloff E, Meyers P. 2010. Patient radiation exposure during diagnostic and therapeutic interventional neuroradiology procedures. J. Neurointerv. Surg. 2(1): 6–10. [Google Scholar]
  • Baptista M, Di Maria S, Oliveira N, Matela N, Janeiro L, Almeida P, Vaz P. 2014. Image quality and dose assessment in digital breast tomosynthesis: A Monte Carlo study. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 104: 158–162. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Brink JA, Amis ES Jr. 2010. Image Wisely: A campaign to increase awareness about adult radiation protection. Radiology 257(3): 601–602. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Carinou E, Ginjaume M, O’Connor U, Kopec R, Merce MS. 2014. Status of eye lens radiation dose monitoring in European hospitals. J. Radiol. Prot. 34(4): 729. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Farman AG. 2005. ALARA still applies. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 100(4): 395–397. [Google Scholar]
  • Frush DP, Donnelly LF, Rosen NS. 2003. Computed tomography and radiation risks: What pediatric health care providers should know. Pediatrics 112(4): 951–957. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Goske MJ et al. (2008). The Image Gently campaign: Working together to change practice. Am. J. Roentgenol. 190(2): 273–274. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hausleiter J et al. 2010. Image quality and radiation exposure with a low tube voltage protocol for coronary CT angiography: Results of the PROTECTION II Trial. JACC: Cardiovasc. Imaging 3(11): 1113–1123. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hendee WR, Edwards FM. 1986. ALARA and an integrated approach to radiation protection. Semin. Nucl. Med. 16(2): 142–150. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Hoheisel M. 2006. Review of medical imaging with emphasis on X-ray detectors. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A: Accel. Spectrometr., Detect. Assoc. Equip. 563(1): 215–224. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • ICRP. 1951. International recommendations on radiological protection. Revised by the International Commission on Radiological Protection at the Sixth International Congress of Radiology, London, 1950. Br. J. Radiol. 24: 46–53. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • ICRP. 1955. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Br. J. Radiol. Suppl. 6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • ICRP. 1958. Report on amendments during 1956 to the Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Radiat. Res. 8: 539–542. [Google Scholar]
  • ICRP. 1959. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Now known as ICRP Publication 1. New York: Pergamon Press. [Google Scholar]
  • ICRP. 1960. Report on decisions at the 1959 Meeting of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). Acta Radiol. 53: 166–170. [Google Scholar]
  • ICRP. 1964. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 6. Oxford: Pergamon Press. [Google Scholar]
  • ICRP. 1966. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 9. Oxford: Pergamon Press. [Google Scholar]
  • ICRP. 1977. Recommendations of the ICRP. ICRP Publication 26. Ann. ICRP 1(3): 1–53. [Google Scholar]
  • IXRPC. 1929. International Recommendations for X-ray and Radium Protection. A Report of the Second International Congress of Radiology. Stockholm: P.A. Nordstedt & Soner, pp. 62–73. [Google Scholar]
  • IXRPC. 1934. International recommendations for x-ray and radium protection. Revised by the International X-ray and Radium Protection Commission at the Fourth International Congress of Radiology, Zurich, July 1934. Br. J. Radiol. 7(83): 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  • IXRPC. 1938. International recommendations for x-ray and radium protection. Revised by the International X-ray and Radium Protection Commission at the Fifth International Congress of Radiology, Chicago, September 1937. Br. Inst. Radiol. leaflet: 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  • Jeong K et al. 2014. Real-time assessment of exposure dose to workers in radiological environments during decommissioning of nuclear facilities. Ann. Nucl. Energy 73: 441–445. [Google Scholar]
  • Jeong K et al. 2016. An estimation to measure and to evaluate the work times following the trajectory of workers during decommissioning of nuclear facilities. Ann. Nucl. Energy 94: 10–15. [Google Scholar]
  • Kim SI, Lee HY, Song JS. 2018. A study on characteristics and internal exposure evaluation of radioactive aerosols during pipe cutting in decommissioning of nuclear power plant. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 50: 1088–1098. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Marx W, Bornmann L. 2014. Tracing the origin of a scientific legend by reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS): The legend of the Darwin finches. Scientometrics 99(3): 839–844. [Google Scholar]
  • Marx W, Bornmann L, Barth A, Leydesdorff L. 2014. Detecting the historical roots of research fields by reference publication year spectroscopy (RPYS). J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65(4): 751–764. [Google Scholar]
  • McCollough CH, Schueler BA, Atwell TD, Braun NN, Regner DM, Brown DL, LeRoy AJ. 2007. Radiation exposure and pregnancy: When should we be concerned? Radiographics 27(4): 909–917. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Miglioretti DL et al. 2013. The use of computed tomography in pediatrics and the associated radiation exposure and estimated cancer risk. JAMA Pediatr. 167(8): 700–707. [Google Scholar]
  • Quinn A, Taylor C, Sabharwal T, Sikdar T. 1997. Radiation protection awareness in non-radiologists. Br. J. Radiol. 70(829): 102–106. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Schaefer-Prokop C, Neitzel U, Venema HW, Uffmann M, Prokop M. 2008. Digital chest radiography: An update on modern technology, dose containment and control of image quality. Eur. Radiolo. 18(9): 1818–1830. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Schembri GP, Miller AE, Smart R. 2010. Radiation dosimetry and safety issues in the investigation of pulmonary embolism. Semin. Nucl. Med. 40(6): 442–454. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Seibert JA. 2006. Flat-panel detectors: How much better are they? Pediatr. Radiol. 36(2): 173–181. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Tamm EP, Rong, XJ, Cody DD, Ernst RD, Fitzgerald NE, Kundra V. 2011. Quality initiatives: CT radiation dose reduction: How to implement change without sacrificing diagnostic quality. Radiographics 31(7): 1823–1832. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Tayama R, Fujita Y, Tadokoro M, Fujimaki H, Sakae T, Terunuma T. 2006. Measurement of neutron dose distribution for a passive scattering nozzle at the Proton Medical Research Center (PMRC). Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A: Accel. Spectrometr., Detect. Assoc. Equip. 564(1): 532–536. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Thomas KE, Parnell-Parmley JE, Haidar S, Moineddin R, Charkot E, BenDavid G, Krajewski C. 2006. Assessment of radiation dose awareness among pediatricians. Pediatr. Radiol. 36(8): 823–832. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Xu XG. 2014. An exponential growth of computational phantom research in radiation protection, imaging, and radiotherapy: A review of the fifty-year history. Phys. Med. Biol. 59(18): R233– R302. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Yeung AWK. 2017. Identification of seminal works that built the foundation for functional magnetic resonance imaging studies of taste and food. Curr. Sci. 113(7): 1225–1227. [Google Scholar]
  • Yeung AWK, Wong NSM. 2019. The Historical Roots of Visual Analogue Scale in Psychology as Revealed by Reference Publication Year Spectroscopy. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 13: 86. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Yeung AWK, Jacobs R, Bornstein MM. 2019. Novel low-dose protocols using cone beam computed tomography in dental medicine: A review focusing on indications, limitations, and future possibilities. Clin. Oral Investig. [Epub ahead of print]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02907-y. [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.