299 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17696080)
21. [Central online quality assurance in radiology: an IT solution exemplified by the German Breast Cancer Screening Program].
Czwoydzinski J; Girnus R; Sommer A; Heindel W; Lenzen H
Rofo; 2011 Sep; 183(9):849-54. PubMed ID: 21830180
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. [Results of an automatic evaluation of test images according to PAS 1054 and IEC 6220-1-2 on different types of digital mammographic units].
Blendl C; Schreiber AC; Buhr H
Rofo; 2009 Oct; 181(10):979-88. PubMed ID: 19676013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Current challenges of full field digital mammography.
Van Ongeval C; Bosmans H; Van Steen A
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):148-53. PubMed ID: 16461520
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Early experience in the use of quantitative image quality measurements for the quality assurance of full field digital mammography x-ray systems.
Marshall NW
Phys Med Biol; 2007 Sep; 52(18):5545-68. PubMed ID: 17804881
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Comparison of 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitors and 5-megapixel liquid crystal monitors for soft-copy reading in full-field digital mammography.
Schueller G; Schueller-Weidekamm C; Pinker K; Memarsadeghi M; Weber M; Helbich TH
Eur J Radiol; 2010 Oct; 76(1):68-72. PubMed ID: 19481396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Evaluation of equipment performance, patient dose, imaging quality, and diagnostic coincidence in five Mexico City mammography services.
Brandan ME; Ruiz-Trejo C; Verdejo-Silva M; Guevara M; Lozano-Zalce H; Madero-Preciado L; Martín J; Noel-Etienne LM; Ramírez-Arias JL; Soto J; Villaseñor Y
Arch Med Res; 2004; 35(1):24-30. PubMed ID: 15036796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Digital mammography image quality: image display.
Siegel E; Krupinski E; Samei E; Flynn M; Andriole K; Erickson B; Thomas J; Badano A; Seibert JA; Pisano ED
J Am Coll Radiol; 2006 Aug; 3(8):615-27. PubMed ID: 17412136
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Experience with the European quality assurance guidelines for digital mammography systems in a national screening programme.
McCullagh J; Keavey E; Egan G; Phelan N
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Feb; 153(2):223-6. PubMed ID: 23173219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. [Investigation of quality control and average glandular dose and image quality in digital mammography in Hokkaido].
Kurowarabi K; Abe H; Horita H; Kaneta K
Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi; 2011; 67(4):374-80. PubMed ID: 21532248
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. Organisational aspects of mammography screening in digital settings: first experiences of Luxembourg.
Shannoun F; Schanck JM; Scharpantgen A; Wagnon MC; Ben Daoud M; Back C
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):195-8. PubMed ID: 18448438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Analysis of digital image quality indexes for CIRS SP01 and CDMAM 3.4 mammographic phantoms.
Mayo P; Rodenas F; Verdú G; Campayo JM; Villaescusa JI
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc; 2008; 2008():418-21. PubMed ID: 19162682
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Should processed or raw image data be used in mammographic image quality analyses? A comparative study of three full-field digital mammography systems.
Borg M; Badr I; Royle G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jan; 163(1):102-17. PubMed ID: 24692583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Development of acceptability criteria in mammography.
Faulkner K; Malone JF; Bosmans H
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Feb; 153(2):219-22. PubMed ID: 23169814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Comparison of LCD and CRT displays based on efficacy for digital mammography.
Saunders RS; Samei E; Baker J; Delong D; Soo MS; Walsh R; Pisano E; Kuzmiak CM; Pavic D
Acad Radiol; 2006 Nov; 13(11):1317-26. PubMed ID: 17070449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Performance of mammography equipment in the Macedonian breast screening campaign 2008/2009.
Gershan V; Antevska-Grujoska S
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Sep; 147(1-2):187-91. PubMed ID: 21733866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Lesion size inaccuracies in digital mammography.
Paquelet JR; Hendrick RE
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Jan; 194(1):W115-8. PubMed ID: 20028882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Confrontation of mammography systems in flanders with the European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in mammography screening. Analysis of initial results.
Bosmans H; Carton AK; Deprez T; Rogge F; Van Steen A; Van Limbergen E; Marchal G
JBR-BTR; 1999 Dec; 82(6):288-93. PubMed ID: 10670170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of microcalcifications: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a clinical setting.
Uematsu T; Kasami M; Uchida Y
Acta Radiol; 2007 Sep; 48(7):714-20. PubMed ID: 17729000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Contrast-detail phantom scoring methodology.
Thomas JA; Chakrabarti K; Kaczmarek R; Romanyukha A
Med Phys; 2005 Mar; 32(3):807-14. PubMed ID: 15839353
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
