379 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12375196)
21. [Chest radiography: ROC phantom study of four different digital systems and one conventional radiographic system].
Redlich U; Reissberg S; Hoeschen C; Effenberger O; Fessel A; Preuss H; Scherlach C; Döhring W
Rofo; 2003 Jan; 175(1):38-45. PubMed ID: 12525979
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Performance tests for mammographic film-screen combinations: use of absolute techniques.
Bor D; Akdur K
Diagn Interv Radiol; 2013; 19(5):360-70. PubMed ID: 23603122
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. [A comparison between traditional mammography and digital with storage phosphors].
Lambruschi G; Tagliagambe A; Palla L; Torri T; D'Alessandro F; Pastori R; Barbieri L
Radiol Med; 1993; 85(1-2):59-64. PubMed ID: 8480050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. [Comparison of four digital and one conventional radiographic image systems for the chest in a patient study with subsequent system optimization].
Redlich U; Hoeschen C; Effenberger O; Fessel A; Preuss H; Reissberg S; Scherlach C; Döhring W
Rofo; 2005 Feb; 177(2):272-8. PubMed ID: 15666237
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Recent advances in screen-film mammography.
Haus AG
Radiol Clin North Am; 1987 Sep; 25(5):913-28. PubMed ID: 3306773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography.
Gennaro G; Ferro F; Contento G; Fornasin F; di Maggio C
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 52(5):1387-407. PubMed ID: 17301461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Optimization of tube potential-filter combinations for film-screen mammography: a contrast detail phantom study.
Chida K; Zuguchi M; Sai M; Saito H; Yamada T; Ishibashi T; Ito D; Kimoto N; Kohzuki M; Takahashi S
Clin Imaging; 2005; 29(4):246-50. PubMed ID: 15967314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Comparison of full field digital (FFD) and computed radiography (CR) mammography systems in Greece.
Kalathaki M; Hourdakis CJ; Economides S; Tritakis P; Kalyvas N; Simantirakis G; Manousaridis G; Kaisas I; Kamenopoulou V
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Sep; 147(1-2):202-5. PubMed ID: 21821614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. [Experimental study on image quality when using screens in mammography (author's transl)].
Maurer HJ; Goos F
Rofo; 1979 Mar; 130(3):347-51. PubMed ID: 155580
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. A comparison of the performance of modern screen-film and digital mammography systems.
Monnin P; Gutierrez D; Bulling S; Lepori D; Valley JF; Verdun FR
Phys Med Biol; 2005 Jun; 50(11):2617-31. PubMed ID: 15901958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. A comparison between objective and subjective image quality measurements for a full field digital mammography system.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2006 May; 51(10):2441-63. PubMed ID: 16675862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Evaluation of a new mammographic film: methods and considerations.
Tsalafoutas OA; Kolovos CA; Tsapaki V; Betsou S; Koliakou E; Maniatis PN; Xenofos S
Health Phys; 2008 Apr; 94(4):338-44. PubMed ID: 18332725
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. [Digital storage phosphor mammography in a magnification technic: experimental studies for spatial resolution and for detection of microcalcifications].
Funke M; Hermann KP; Breiter N; Hundertmark C; Sachs J; Gruhl T; Sperner W; Grabbe E
Rofo; 1997 Aug; 167(2):174-9. PubMed ID: 9333359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Evaluation of the minimum iodine concentration for contrast-enhanced subtraction mammography.
Baldelli P; Bravin A; Di Maggio C; Gennaro G; Sarnelli A; Taibi A; Gambaccini M
Phys Med Biol; 2006 Sep; 51(17):4233-51. PubMed ID: 16912379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Digital mammography: quality and dose control.
Di Maggio C; Gambaccini M; Gennaro G; Baldelli P; Taibi A; Chersevani R; Aimonetto S; Rossetti V; Origgi D; Vigorito S; Contento G; Angelini L; Maggi S
Radiol Med; 2004; 107(5-6):459-73. PubMed ID: 15195008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Mammographic equipment, technique, and quality control.
Friedrich MA
Curr Opin Radiol; 1991 Aug; 3(4):571-8. PubMed ID: 1888654
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Motion artifact seen on slot-scanning direct digital mammography.
Boyle ER; Pak D; Williams JB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1999 Mar; 172(3):697-701. PubMed ID: 10063863
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. [Digital radiography in urography].
Salvini E; Abbona M; Barigozzi P; Favini G; Pedroli G; Crespi A; Pastori R; Cerutti R; Stacul F
Radiol Med; 1989; 77(1-2):44-50. PubMed ID: 2928564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. [X-ray examination of the breast (author's transl)].
Friedrich M
Rontgenblatter; 1981 Apr; 34(4):151-60. PubMed ID: 7015468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. [Image quality and optical density in mammography: study on phantoms].
Stinés J; Noël A; Estivalet S; Troufléau P; Netter E; Quinquis J
J Radiol; 1998 Apr; 79(4):331-5. PubMed ID: 9757259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
