These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

56 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15346292)

  • 1. [Bavarian mammography screening: results of consistency tests in X-ray units over three months].
    Blendl C; Klug A; Lohmann R; Moll C; Schädlich J; Blaser D
    Rofo; 2004 Aug; 176(8):1157-66. PubMed ID: 15346292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Confrontation of mammography systems in flanders with the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in mammography screening. Analysis of initial results.
    Bosmans H; Carton AK; Deprez T; Rogge F; Van Steen A; Van Limbergen E; Marchal G
    JBR-BTR; 1999 Dec; 82(6):288-93. PubMed ID: 10670170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [The procedures and results of a quality control program in mammography carried out on a regional basis].
    Milano F; Rosselli Del Turco M; Maggi E; Certo N; Morrone D; Lazzeri B
    Radiol Med; 1996 Mar; 91(3):187-93. PubMed ID: 8628928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Implementation of the European protocol for quality control of the technical aspects of mammography screening in Bulgaria.
    Vassileva J; Avramova-Cholakova S; Dimov A; Lichev A
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):403-5. PubMed ID: 15933146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Central online quality assurance in radiology: an IT solution exemplified by the German Breast Cancer Screening Program].
    Czwoydzinski J; Girnus R; Sommer A; Heindel W; Lenzen H
    Rofo; 2011 Sep; 183(9):849-54. PubMed ID: 21830180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Evaluation of preexposed step wedges in acceptance tests of film processing in mammography].
    Blendl C
    Radiologe; 2003 Mar; 43(3):240-5. PubMed ID: 12664240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Assessment of mammographic units in Poland in the view of current requirements of radiation protection regulations].
    Bekas M; Pachocki KA; Rózycki Z; Wieprzowski K; Fabiszewska E
    Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig; 2006; 57(1):81-90. PubMed ID: 16900867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Artifacts in digital mammography.
    Van Ongeval C; Jacobs J; Bosmans H
    JBR-BTR; 2008; 91(6):262-3. PubMed ID: 19203002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Quality and homogeneity monitoring of radiologists in the Turin mammographic screening. Comparison of the pilot phase results].
    Milanesio L; Burke P; Frigerio A; Marra V
    Radiol Med; 1996 Jun; 91(6):710-3. PubMed ID: 8830354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Can the average glandular dose in routine digital mammography screening be reduced? A pilot study using revised image quality criteria.
    Hemdal B; Andersson I; Grahn A; Håkansson M; Ruschin M; Thilander-Klang A; Båth M; Börjesson S; Medin J; Tingberg A; Månsson LG; Mattsson S
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):383-8. PubMed ID: 15933142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Physical and technical quality assurance in German breast cancer screening: progress report of the Reference Center Muenster after three years].
    Sommer A; Girnus R; Wendt B; Czwoydzinski J; Wüstenbecker C; Heindel W; Lenzen H
    Rofo; 2009 May; 181(5):447-53. PubMed ID: 19391067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Comparison of two automatic evaluation methods on Images of the CDMAM test phantom].
    Blendl C; Loos C; Eiben B
    Rofo; 2009 Jul; 181(7):637-43. PubMed ID: 19513964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Contributions of the epidemiological cancer registries to the evaluation of mammography screening in Germany].
    Urbschat I; Kieschke J; Schlanstedt-Jahn U; von Gehlen S; Thiel A; Jensch P
    Gesundheitswesen; 2005 Jul; 67(7):448-54. PubMed ID: 16103967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Radiation exposure and image sharpness of mammographic units in bavaria with respect to the European guidelines].
    Schätzl M; Schöfer H; Küchler M; Wilhelm M
    Rofo; 2004 Aug; 176(8):1089-93. PubMed ID: 15346283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of breast masses using digitized images versus screen-film mammography.
    Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yao X; Yang Y; Li K
    Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):618-22. PubMed ID: 18568552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Acceptance and constancy test radiographic projections with screen film systems].
    Blendl C
    Z Med Phys; 2002; 12(4):268-80. PubMed ID: 12575441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Clinical evaluation of a new set of image quality criteria for mammography.
    Grahn A; Hemdal B; Andersson I; Ruschin M; Thilander-Klang A; Börjesson S; Tingberg A; Mattsson S; Håkansson M; Båth M; Månsson LG; Medin J; Wanninger F; Panzer W
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):389-94. PubMed ID: 15933143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Colorectal cancer screening behavior in women attending screening mammography: longitudinal trends and predictors.
    Carlos RC; Fendrick AM; Abrahamse PH; Dong Q; Patterson SK; Bernstein SJ
    Womens Health Issues; 2005; 15(6):249-57. PubMed ID: 16325138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Assessment of mammographic film processor performance in a hospital and mobile screening unit.
    Murray JG; Dowsett DJ; Laird O; Ennis JT
    Br J Radiol; 1992 Dec; 65(780):1097-101. PubMed ID: 1286417
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Optical density of phantom images of different mammography equipment using various exposure conditions].
    Blendl C
    Radiologe; 2002 Apr; 42(4):291-8. PubMed ID: 12063737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 3.