<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
 <record>
  <leader>     caa a22        4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">397502664</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="003">CHVBK</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20180308164536.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="007">cr unu---uuuuu</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="008">161202e19950101xx      s     000 0 eng  </controlfield>
  <datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a082519</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">doi</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">0144-8420</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">pii</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">(NATIONALLICENCE)oxford-10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a082519</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1="0" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="a">Assessment of Image Quality for Chest Radiography in the West Midlands</subfield>
   <subfield code="h">[Elektronische Daten]</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">[H.M. Warren-Forward, J.S. Millar]</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1="3" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Radiographic quality of chest radiographs has been assessed during a patient dosimetry programme. Radiographs from each of the centres involved were assessed by a radiologist from that centre and a sample of these were assessed by a control radiologist. A questionnaire was used by the radiologist at each centre to assess patient positioning, respiration and radiographic quality. A control radiologist assessed each radiograph in two ways. The first assessment was made using the questionnaire. The films were then reviewed a second time, in a single sitting, at which they were scored on an arbitrary scale of 1 to 5 in order to assess the immediate impression of the radiographic quality. Inter-observer variations were seen to be large, with a correlation r=0.52. Much smaller variations in intra-observer observation were seen when assessing the same films using the two methods above, thus demonstrating that the control radiologist was consistent. The relationship between image quality and (a) dose and (b) applied potential was assessed using the quality scores obtained by the control radiologist using the questionnaire. There was a slight tendency to higher radiographic scores at lower patient doses (r=0.36, p=0.13). There was a strong relationship between image quality and applied potential (r=0.77, p=0.005).</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Radiation Protection Dosimetry</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Warren-Forward</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">H.M.</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">Millar</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">J.S.</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="t">Radiation Protection Dosimetry</subfield>
   <subfield code="d">Oxford University Press</subfield>
   <subfield code="g">57/1-4(1995-01-01), 171-174</subfield>
   <subfield code="x">0144-8420</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">57:1-4&lt;171</subfield>
   <subfield code="1">1995</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">57</subfield>
   <subfield code="o">rpd</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0">
   <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a082519</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">text/html</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Onlinezugriff via DOI</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="908" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="D">1</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">research-article</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">jats</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">856</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">40</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.rpd.a082519</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">text/html</subfield>
   <subfield code="z">Onlinezugriff via DOI</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">700</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">1-</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">Warren-Forward</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">H.M.</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">700</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">1-</subfield>
   <subfield code="a">Millar</subfield>
   <subfield code="D">J.S.</subfield>
   <subfield code="4">aut</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="950" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="P">773</subfield>
   <subfield code="E">0-</subfield>
   <subfield code="t">Radiation Protection Dosimetry</subfield>
   <subfield code="d">Oxford University Press</subfield>
   <subfield code="g">57/1-4(1995-01-01), 171-174</subfield>
   <subfield code="x">0144-8420</subfield>
   <subfield code="q">57:1-4&lt;171</subfield>
   <subfield code="1">1995</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">57</subfield>
   <subfield code="o">rpd</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="900" ind1=" " ind2="7">
   <subfield code="a">Metadata rights reserved</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">CC BY-NC-4.0</subfield>
   <subfield code="u">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0</subfield>
   <subfield code="2">nationallicence</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="898" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="a">BK010053</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">XK010053</subfield>
   <subfield code="c">XK010000</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="949" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
   <subfield code="B">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="F">NATIONALLICENCE</subfield>
   <subfield code="b">NL-oxford</subfield>
  </datafield>
 </record>
</collection>
