860 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17275983)
1. Objective performance testing and quality assurance of medical ultrasound equipment.
Thijssen JM; Weijers G; de Korte CL
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2007 Mar; 33(3):460-71. PubMed ID: 17275983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The resolution integral: visual and computational approaches to characterizing ultrasound images.
MacGillivray TJ; Ellis W; Pye SD
Phys Med Biol; 2010 Sep; 55(17):5067-88. PubMed ID: 20702928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Adaptive field-of-view imaging for efficient receive beamforming in medical ultrasound imaging systems.
Agarwal A; Yoo YM; Schneider FK; Kim Y
Ultrasonics; 2008 Sep; 48(5):384-93. PubMed ID: 18372001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Definition criteria for a magnetic resonance quality assurance program: multicenter study].
Mascaro L; Strocchi S; Colombo P; Del Corona M; Baldassarri AM
Radiol Med; 1999 May; 97(5):389-97. PubMed ID: 10432972
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Investigation of transmit and receive performance at the fundamental and third harmonic resonance frequency of a medical ultrasound transducer.
Frijlink ME; Løvstakken L; Torp H
Ultrasonics; 2009 Dec; 49(8):601-4. PubMed ID: 19403153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Approaches to objective assessment of differences in tissue textures by ultrasound equipment as a contribution to quality assurance].
Bleck JS; Gebel M; Satrapa JD; Caselitz M; Westhoff-Bleck M; Wagner S; Manns M
Ultraschall Med; 1997 Dec; 18(6):238-43. PubMed ID: 9491488
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Influence of the ultrasound transducer bandwidth on selection of the complementary Golay bit code length.
Nowicki A; Trots I; Lewin PA; Secomski W; Tymkiewicz R
Ultrasonics; 2007 Dec; 47(1-4):64-73. PubMed ID: 17825338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Performance testing of medical echo/Doppler equipment.
Thijssen JM; van Wijk MC; Cuypers MH
Eur J Ultrasound; 2002 Oct; 15(3):151-64. PubMed ID: 12423742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Evaluations of UltraiQ software for objective ultrasound image quality assessment using images from a commercial scanner.
Long Z; Tradup DJ; Stekel SF; Gorny KR; Hangiandreou NJ
J Appl Clin Med Phys; 2018 Mar; 19(2):298-304. PubMed ID: 29336119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Validation of a sensitivity performance index test protocol and evaluation of colour Doppler sensitivity for a range of ultrasound scanners.
Browne JE; Watson AJ; Hoskins PR; Elliott AT
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2004 Nov; 30(11):1475-83. PubMed ID: 15588958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A novel coded excitation scheme to improve spatial and contrast resolution of quantitative ultrasound imaging.
Sanchez JR; Pocci D; Oelze ML
IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control; 2009 Oct; 56(10):2111-23. PubMed ID: 19942499
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The automated assessment of ultrasound scanner lateral and slice thickness resolution: use of the step response.
Rowland DE; Newey VR; Turner DP; Nassiri DK
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2009 Sep; 35(9):1525-34. PubMed ID: 19560252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Frequency decomposition and compounding of ultrasound medical images with wavelet packets.
Cincotti G; Loi G; Pappalardo M
IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2001 Aug; 20(8):764-71. PubMed ID: 11513027
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Performance evaluation of a modular gamma camera using a detectability index.
Sain JD; Barrett HH
J Nucl Med; 2003 Jan; 44(1):58-66. PubMed ID: 12515877
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Echo-power estimation from log-compressed video data in dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging.
Payen T; Coron A; Lamuraglia M; Le Guillou-Buffello D; Gaud E; Arditi M; Lucidarme O; Bridal SL
Ultrasound Med Biol; 2013 Oct; 39(10):1826-37. PubMed ID: 23879926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [A quality control test of the image obtained with electronic portal imaging devices].
Casanova Borca V; Pasquino M; Bertodatto M; Tofani S
Radiol Med; 2001 Oct; 102(4):266-70. PubMed ID: 11740456
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Quality control in ultrasonography].
Meuwly JY
Ther Umsch; 1997 Jan; 54(1):37-43. PubMed ID: 9064797
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Evaluation of a software package for automated quality assessment of contrast detail images--comparison with subjective visual assessment.
Pascoal A; Lawinski CP; Honey I; Blake P
Phys Med Biol; 2005 Dec; 50(23):5743-57. PubMed ID: 16306665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Quality assurance phantom for digital dental imaging.
Mah P; McDavid WD; Dove SB
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2011 Nov; 112(5):632-9. PubMed ID: 21862364
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
