339 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15933145)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Problems with film processing in medical X-ray imaging in Lithuania.
Sniureviciute M; Adliene D
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):260-3. PubMed ID: 15933118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Average glandular dose conversion coefficients for segmented breast voxel models.
Zankl M; Fill U; Hoeschen C; Panzer W; Regulla D
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):410-4. PubMed ID: 15933148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [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]
10. Breast dosimetry using high-resolution voxel phantoms.
Dance DR; Hunt RA; Bakic PR; Maidment AD; Sandborg M; Ullman G; Alm Carlsson G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):359-63. PubMed ID: 15933137
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Determining air kerma from pixel values in digital mammography.
Toroi P; Nieminen MT; Tenkanen-Rautakoski P; Varjonen M
Phys Med Biol; 2009 Jun; 54(12):3865-79. PubMed ID: 19491454
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Optimisation strategies in medical X-ray imaging.
Mattsson S
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):1-3. PubMed ID: 15933074
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Contrast-to-noise ratio in magnification mammography: a Monte Carlo study.
Koutalonis M; Delis H; Spyrou G; Costaridou L; Tzanakos G; Panayiotakis G
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jun; 52(11):3185-99. PubMed ID: 17505097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Towards a proposition of a diagnostic (dose) reference level for mammographic acquisitions in breast screening measurements in Belgium.
Smans K; Bosmans H; Xiao M; Carton AK; Marchal G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):321-6. PubMed ID: 16464839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluation of the entrance surface air kerma in mammographic examinations in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Oliveira LC; Dias TK; Lopes RT; Kodlulovich S
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2009 Feb; 133(3):136-43. PubMed ID: 19287013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. [Radiation exposure in x-ray mammography].
Säbel M; Aichinger U; Schulz-Wendtland R
Rofo; 2001 Feb; 173(2):79-91. PubMed ID: 11253092
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 3-Dimensional rotational X-ray imaging, 3D-RX: image quality and patient dose simulation for optimisation studies.
Kroon JN
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):341-9. PubMed ID: 15933134
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
