77 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1632343)
1. Evaluation of mammographic image quality: pilot study comparing five methods.
Caldwell CB; Fishell EK; Jong RA; Weiser WJ; Yaffe MJ
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1992 Aug; 159(2):295-301. PubMed ID: 1632343
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Application of wavelets to the evaluation of phantom images for mammography quality control.
Alvarez M; Pina DR; Miranda JR; Duarte SB
Phys Med Biol; 2012 Nov; 57(21):7177-90. PubMed ID: 23060095
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Subjective evaluations of mammographic accreditation phantom images by three observer groups.
Brooks KW; Trueblood JH; Kearfott KJ
Invest Radiol; 1994 Jan; 29(1):42-7. PubMed ID: 8144336
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Subjective evaluation of image quality based on images obtained with a breast tissue phantom: comparison with a conventional image quality phantom.
Olsen JB; Sager EM
Br J Radiol; 1995 Feb; 68(806):160-4. PubMed ID: 7735746
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Quality assurance in screening mammography.
Health Devices; 1990; 19(5-6):152-98. PubMed ID: 2372321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. A phantom using titanium and Landolt rings for image quality evaluation in mammography.
de las Heras H; Schöfer F; Tiller B; Chevalier M; Zwettler G; Semturs F
Phys Med Biol; 2013 Apr; 58(8):L17-30. PubMed ID: 23528479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Quantitative versus subjective evaluation of mammography accreditation phantom images.
Chakraborty DP; Eckert MP
Med Phys; 1995 Feb; 22(2):133-43. PubMed ID: 7565344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Mammographic Phantoms Frequently Used to Determine Image Quality: A Comparative Study.
AlKhalifah K; Brindabhan A
J Allied Health; 2017; 46(4):239-242. PubMed ID: 29202159
[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. Review of the first 50 cases completed by the RACR mammography QA programme: phantom image quality, processor control and dose considerations.
McLean D; Eckert M; Heard R; Chan W
Australas Radiol; 1997 Nov; 41(4):387-91. PubMed ID: 9409037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Assessment of mammography quality in Istanbul.
Gürdemir B; Arıbal E
Diagn Interv Radiol; 2012; 18(5):468-72. PubMed ID: 22801869
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Automated analysis of the American College of Radiology mammographic accreditation phantom images.
Brooks KW; Trueblood JH; Kearfott KJ; Lawton DT
Med Phys; 1997 May; 24(5):709-23. PubMed ID: 9167162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [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]
15. Reasons for failure of a mammography unit at clinical image review in the American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program.
Bassett LW; Farria DM; Bansal S; Farquhar MA; Wilcox PA; Feig SA
Radiology; 2000 Jun; 215(3):698-702. PubMed ID: 10831687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Standardization of image quality and radiation dose in mammography.
Hendrick RE
Radiology; 1990 Mar; 174(3 Pt 1):648-54. PubMed ID: 2305044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [A bimetal anode with tungsten or rhodium? Comparative studies on image quality and dosage requirement in mammography].
Funke M; Hermann KP; Breiter N; Moritz J; Müller D; Grabbe E
Rofo; 1995 Nov; 163(5):388-94. PubMed ID: 8527751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. National survey of mammographic facilities in 1985, 1988, and 1992.
Conway BJ; Suleiman OH; Rueter FG; Antonsen RG; Slayton RJ
Radiology; 1994 May; 191(2):323-30. PubMed ID: 8153301
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Mammography dosimetry using an in-house developed polymethyl methacrylate phantom.
Sharma R; Sharma SD; Mayya YS; Chourasiya G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2012 Aug; 151(2):379-85. PubMed ID: 22232773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Proficiency test in clinical mammography. Results of a consecutive series of 130 volunteer Italian radiologists].
Ciatto S; Andreoli C; Di Maggio C
Radiol Med; 1999 Oct; 98(4):255-8. PubMed ID: 10615363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
