This poster is published under an
open license. Please read the
disclaimer for further details.
Keywords:
Dosimetric comparison, Radiation safety, CT, Radioprotection / Radiation dose, Musculoskeletal spine
Authors:
A. Papachristodoulou1, N. Pliamis1, G. Volford2, R. Markó3, �. Papp3, K. Katsari4, R. Illing3, L. M. J. Best5; 1Thessaloniki/GR, 2Szeged/HU, 3Budapest/HU, 4Athens/GR, 5London/UK
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2016/C-2386
References
1. Zarb F,
McEntee MF,
Rainford L.
Visual grading characteristics and ordinal regression analysis during optimisation of CT head examinations. Insights into Imaging.
2015;6(3):393-401.
doi:10.1007/s13244-014-0374-9.
2. Zarb,
Francis et al.
Image quality assessment tools for optimization of CT images.
Radiography,
Volume 16 ,
Issue 2 ,
147 - 153
3. Primak A,
McCollough C,
Bruesewitz M,
Zhang J,
Fletcher J.
Relationship between noise,
dose,
and pitch in cardiac multidetector row CT. RadioGraphics.
2006;26:1785–1794.
doi: 10.1148/rg.266065063.
4. Mansson L.
Methods for the evaluation of image quality: a review. Radiat Prot Dosim. 2000;90(1–2):89–99.
doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a033149.
5. Lam S,
Bux S,
Kumar G,
Ng K,
Hussain A.
A comparison between low-dose and standard-dose non-contrasted multidetector CT scanning of the paranasal sinuses. Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal.
2009;5(3):e13.
doi:10.2349/biij.5.3.e13.
6. Fleiss,
J.
L.
(1971) "Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters." Psychological Bulletin,
Vol.
76,
No.
5 pp.
378–382
7. Landis,
J.
R.
and Koch,
G.
G.
(1977) "The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data" in Biometrics.
Vol.
33,
pp.
159–174