Accès gratuit
Cet article a une note : [note]

Numéro
Radioprotection
Volume 54, Numéro 2, April–June 2019
Page(s) 103 - 109
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/radiopro/2019016
Publié en ligne 13 mai 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. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [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]

Les statistiques affichées correspondent au cumul d'une part des vues des résumés de l'article et d'autre part des vues et téléchargements de l'article plein-texte (PDF, Full-HTML, ePub... selon les formats disponibles) sur la platefome Vision4Press.

Les statistiques sont disponibles avec un délai de 48 à 96 heures et sont mises à jour quotidiennement en semaine.

Le chargement des statistiques peut être long.