141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15973597)
1. [Digital X-ray mammography: comparison of the image quality achievable with a wet laser imager, a dry infrared laser imager and a dry laser imager using direct thermography].
Krug B; Stützer H; Zähringer M; Morgenroth C; Winnekendonk G; Gossmann A; Warm M; Lackner K
Rofo; 2005 Jul; 177(7):955-61. PubMed ID: 15973597
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Dry view laser imager--a new economical photothermal imaging method].
Weberling R
Aktuelle Radiol; 1996 Nov; 6(6):355-60. PubMed ID: 9081413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Image quality of digital chest X-rays: wet versus dry laser printers.
Zähringer M; Wassmer G; Krug B; Winnekendonk G; Gossmann A; Lackner KJ
J Digit Imaging; 2001 Sep; 14(3):158-62. PubMed ID: 11720338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Advantages of magnification in digital phase-contrast mammography using a practical X-ray tube.
Honda C; Ohara H
Eur J Radiol; 2008 Dec; 68(3 Suppl):S69-72. PubMed ID: 18584984
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Dry versus conventional laser imagers: film properties and image quality.
Gahleitner A; Kreuzer S; Schick S; Nowotny R; Breitenseher M; Solar P; Czerny C; Lang T; Imhof H
Radiology; 1999 Mar; 210(3):871-5. PubMed ID: 10207495
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Fundamental study on stability of dry-processing imager system DRYPRO 722/SD-P].
Sonobe F; Toyooka K; Abe S; Tanaka T; Naka E; Fujisaki T; Nishimura K; Saitoh H; Mochizuki Y
Igaku Butsuri; 2002; 22(3):173-82. PubMed ID: 12766281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. The stability of dry and wet laser imaging systems.
AlKhalifah K; Brindhaban A; Al-Ali H; Alhuraibi A
Radiol Technol; 2005; 76(3):192-6. PubMed ID: 15732890
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Validation of image quality in full-field digital mammography: is the replacement of wet by dry laser printers justified?
Schueller G; Kaindl E; Langenberger H; Stadler A; Schueller-Weidekamm C; Semturs F; Helbich TH
Eur J Radiol; 2007 May; 62(2):267-72. PubMed ID: 17188829
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [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]
11. Digital film processing: a comparison of wet and dry processing methods.
Health Devices; 1998 Aug; 27(8):293-8. PubMed ID: 9743901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Wet versus dry laser printers for copying digital mammograms.
Hall FM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Jun; 186(6):E22; author reply E22. PubMed ID: 16714631
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of dry laser printer versus paper printer in full-field digital mammography.
Liang Z; Du X; Guo X; Rong D; Kang R; Mao G; Liu J; Li K
Acta Radiol; 2010 Apr; 51(3):235-9. PubMed ID: 20092369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Image quality of a wet laser printer versus a paper printer for full-field digital mammograms.
Schueller G; Kaindl E; Matzek WK; Semturs F; Schueller-Weidekamm C; Helbich TH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Jan; 186(1):38-43. PubMed ID: 16357374
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Image quality performance of liquid crystal display systems: influence of display resolution, magnification and window settings on contrast-detail detection.
Bacher K; Smeets P; De Hauwere A; Voet T; Duyck P; Verstraete K; Thierens H
Eur J Radiol; 2006 Jun; 58(3):471-9. PubMed ID: 16442770
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Patient doses and image quality in digital chest radiology.
Salát D; Nikodemová D
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):147-9. PubMed ID: 18321878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
