370 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15933140)
1. A survey of patient dose and clinical factors in a full-field digital mammography system.
Morán P; Chevalier M; Ten JI; Fernández Soto JM; Vañó E
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):375-9. PubMed ID: 15933140
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Radiation exposure in full-field digital mammography with a selenium flat-panel detector].
Gosch D; Jendrass S; Scholz M; Kahn T
Rofo; 2006 Jul; 178(7):693-7. PubMed ID: 16761214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Average glandular dose with amorphous silicon full-field digital mammography - Clinical results.
Hermann KP; Obenauer S; Marten K; Kehbel S; Fischer U; Grabbe E
Rofo; 2002 Jun; 174(6):696-9. PubMed ID: 12063597
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Patient dose in digital mammography.
Chevalier M; Morán P; Ten JI; Fernández Soto JM; Cepeda T; Vañó E
Med Phys; 2004 Sep; 31(9):2471-9. PubMed ID: 15487727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Average glandular dose in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
Olgar T; Kahn T; Gosch D
Rofo; 2012 Oct; 184(10):911-8. PubMed ID: 22711250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Optimisation of X-ray examinations in Lithuania: start of implementation in mammography.
Adliene D; Adlys G; Cerapaite R; Jonaitiene E; Cibulskaite I
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):399-402. PubMed ID: 15933145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Intra-individual comparison of average glandular dose of two digital mammography units using different anode/filter combinations.
Engelken FJ; Meyer H; Juran R; Bick U; Fallenberg E; Diekmann F
Acad Radiol; 2009 Oct; 16(10):1272-80. PubMed ID: 19632866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Patient doses from screen-film and full-field digital mammography in a population-based screening programme.
Hauge IH; Pedersen K; Sanderud A; Hofvind S; Olerud HM
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2012 Jan; 148(1):65-73. PubMed ID: 21335333
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Radiation exposure of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography compared with full-field digital mammography.
Jeukens CR; Lalji UC; Meijer E; Bakija B; Theunissen R; Wildberger JE; Lobbes MB
Invest Radiol; 2014 Oct; 49(10):659-65. PubMed ID: 24872005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. INSTITUTIONAL BREAST DOSES IN DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY.
Lekatou A; Metaxas V; Messaris G; Antzele P; Tzavellas G; Panayiotakis G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2019 Dec; 185(2):239-251. PubMed ID: 30753684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of anode/filter combinations in digital mammography with respect to the average glandular dose.
Uhlenbrock DF; Mertelmeier T
Rofo; 2009 Mar; 181(3):249-54. PubMed ID: 19241602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Dose to population as a metric in the design of optimised exposure control in digital mammography.
Klausz R; Shramchenko N
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):369-74. PubMed ID: 15933139
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography.
James JR; Pavlicek W; Hanson JA; Boltz TF; Patel BK
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Feb; 208(2):362-372. PubMed ID: 28112559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Average glandular dose in routine mammography screening using a Sectra MicroDose Mammography unit.
Hemdal B; Herrnsdorf L; Andersson I; Bengtsson G; Heddson B; Olsson M
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):436-43. PubMed ID: 15933152
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Analysis of patient dose in full field digital mammography.
Chen B; Wang Y; Sun X; Guo W; Zhao M; Cui G; Hu L; Li P; Ren Y; Feng J; Yu J
Eur J Radiol; 2012 May; 81(5):868-72. PubMed ID: 21397423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose.
Berns EA; Hendrick RE; Cutter GR
Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):334-40. PubMed ID: 12674233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 'In vivo' average glandular dose evaluation: one-to-one comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography.
Cavagnetto F; Taccini G; Rosasco R; Bampi R; Calabrese M; Tagliafico A
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Nov; 157(1):53-61. PubMed ID: 23734057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
