Keywords:
Radiographers, Conventional radiography, Dosimetry, Dosimetric comparison
Authors:
�. Trožić, A. England, N. Mekis
DOI:
10.26044/ecr2022/C-15516
References
[1] Flintham K, Alzyoud K, England A, Hogg P and Snaith B 2021 Comparing the supine and erect pelvis radiographic examinations: an evaluation of anatomy, image quality and radiation dose Br. J. Radiol.
[2] Alzyoud K, Hogg P, Snaith B, Flintham K and England A 2018 Optimum Positioning for Anteroposterior Pelvis Radiography: A Literature Review J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Sci. 49 316–24
[3] Jackson T J, Estess A A and Adamson G J 2016 Supine and Standing AP Pelvis Radiographs in the Evaluation of Pincer Femoroacetabular Impingement Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 474 1692–6
[4] Campbell S E 2005 Radiography of the hip: Lines, Signs, and Patterns of Disease Semin. Roentgenol. 40 290–319
[5] Alzyoud K S 2019 Establishing an Evidence-Base for Erect Pelvis Radiography: Positioning, Radiation Dose and Image Quality (University of Salford, Manchester)
[6] Flintham K, Snaith B, England A, Hogg P, Alzyoud K and Harris M 2017 A pilot study to compare supine and erect pelvis radiographs-assessment of impact on radiation dose and diagnostic quality (SEPRAIDD): Study Protocol
[7] Alzyoud K, Hogg P, Snaith B, Flintham K and England A 2019 Impact of body part thickness on AP pelvis radiographic image quality and effective dose Radiography 25 e11–7