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 *

166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16421768)

  • 41. [Digital thoracic radiography--a comparison of digital and analog imaging techniques].
    Busch HP
    Bildgebung; 1991; 58 Suppl 1():9-12. PubMed ID: 1799858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Assessment of the problem: pediatric doses in screen-film and digital radiography.
    Huda W
    Pediatr Radiol; 2004 Oct; 34 Suppl 3():S173-82; discussion S234-41. PubMed ID: 15558259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Processor quality assurance using digital imaging.
    Goren AD; Dunn SM; Van der Stelt PF
    N Y State Dent J; 1997 Apr; 63(4):42-7. PubMed ID: 9167431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. [Reduction of patient exposure by the use of digital luminescence radiography].
    Seifert H; Chapot C
    J Radiol; 1999 Nov; 80(11):1555-60. PubMed ID: 10592912
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Quality control of storage phosphor digital radiography systems.
    Freedman M; Steller D; Jafroudi H; Mun SK
    J Digit Imaging; 1995 May; 8(2):67-74. PubMed ID: 7612704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Digital radiography reject analysis: A comparison between two radiology departments in New Zealand.
    Bantas G; Sweeney RJ; Mdletshe S
    J Med Radiat Sci; 2023 Jun; 70(2):137-144. PubMed ID: 36657740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. An audit of film reject and repeat rates in a department of dental radiology.
    Nixon PP; Thorogood J; Holloway J; Smith NJ
    Br J Radiol; 1995 Dec; 68(816):1304-7. PubMed ID: 8777590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Balancing patient dose and image quality.
    Martin CJ; Sutton DG; Sharp PF
    Appl Radiat Isot; 1999 Jan; 50(1):1-19. PubMed ID: 10028625
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Digital radiography. A comparison with modern conventional imaging.
    Bansal GJ
    Postgrad Med J; 2006 Jul; 82(969):425-8. PubMed ID: 16822918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Image quality standards.
    Barnhard HJ
    Radiology; 1982 Apr; 143(1):275-6. PubMed ID: 7063743
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Comparative assessment of digital and analog radiography: diagnostic accuracy, cost analysis and quality of care.
    Colin C; Vergnon P; Guibaud L; Borson O; Pinaudeau D; Perret Du Cray MH; Pasquier JM; Tran-Minh V
    Eur J Radiol; 1998 Feb; 26(3):226-34. PubMed ID: 9587746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Quality assurance in orthodontic radiography.
    Brown JE
    Br J Orthod; 1995 Feb; 22(1):78-84. PubMed ID: 7786872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Reject analysis in digital radiography: A local study on radiographers and students' attitude in Iran.
    Rastegar S; Beigi J; Saeidi E; Dezhkam A; Mobaderi T; Ghaffari H; Mehdipour A; Abdollahi H
    Med J Islam Repub Iran; 2019; 33():49. PubMed ID: 31456973
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Clinical utility of ultra-low-dose pre-test exposure to avoid unnecessary patient exposure due to positioning errors: a simulation study.
    Nose H; Shiraishi J
    Radiol Phys Technol; 2017 Dec; 10(4):489-495. PubMed ID: 28895040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Evaluating the use of exposure indicators in digital x-ray imaging system: Gauteng South Africa.
    Lewis S; Pieterse T; Lawrence H
    Radiography (Lond); 2019 Aug; 25(3):e58-e62. PubMed ID: 31301792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Image rejects in general direct digital radiography.
    Hofmann B; Rosanowsky TB; Jensen C; Wah KH
    Acta Radiol Open; 2015 Oct; 4(10):2058460115604339. PubMed ID: 26500784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Analysis of film reject rate in the diagnostic x-ray facility of a tertiary health institution in Benin, Nigeria.
    Eze CU; Olajide BO; Ohagwu CC; Abonyi LC
    Nig Q J Hosp Med; 2013; 23(1):54-7. PubMed ID: 24579496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Managing repeat digital radiography images-a systematic approach and improvement.
    Tzeng WS; Kuo KM; Liu CF; Yao HC; Chen CY; Lin HW
    J Med Syst; 2012 Aug; 36(4):2697-704. PubMed ID: 21626398
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Image rejects in digital skeletal radiography in two public hospitals in Norway.
    Hofmann B
    Radiography (Lond); 2023 Oct; 29(6):1063-1067. PubMed ID: 37741144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Does quantity of film reading affect quality?
    Given-Wilson R; Blanks R
    Clin Radiol; 2011 Feb; 66(2):97-8. PubMed ID: 21216322
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.