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 *

191 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19676011)

  • 1. [Guideline for the additional test positions according to the EPQC 4th Edition for Digital Mammography Systems].
    Sommer A; Lenzen H; Blaser D; Ehlers SE; Schopphoven S; John C;
    Rofo; 2009 Sep; 181(9):845-50. PubMed ID: 19676011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Guideline for determining the mean glandular dose according to DIN 6868-162 and threshold contrast visibility according to the quality assurance guideline for digital mammography systems.
    Sommer A; Schopphoven S; Land I; Blaser D; Sobczak T;
    Rofo; 2014 May; 186(5):474-81. PubMed ID: 24557600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Typetesting of physical characteristics of digital mammography systems: first experiences within the Flemish breast cancer screening programme.
    Thierens H; Bosmans H; Buls N; Bacher K; De Hauwere A; Jacobs J; Clerinx P
    JBR-BTR; 2007; 90(3):159-62. PubMed ID: 17696080
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [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]  

  • 5. [The quality of digital mammograms. Development and use of phantoms for optimal safety].
    Schöfer H; Kotsianos D; Wirth S; Britsch S; Reiser M
    Radiologe; 2005 Mar; 45(3):278-85. PubMed ID: 15747150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Physical and technical quality assurance in German breast cancer screening: progress report of the Reference Center Muenster after three years].
    Sommer A; Girnus R; Wendt B; Czwoydzinski J; Wüstenbecker C; Heindel W; Lenzen H
    Rofo; 2009 May; 181(5):447-53. PubMed ID: 19391067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Digital mammography screening: average glandular dose and first performance parameters.
    Weigel S; Girnus R; Czwoydzinski J; Decker T; Spital S; Heindel W
    Rofo; 2007 Sep; 179(9):892-5. PubMed ID: 17705112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Devolvement of an objective rating system for the annual physical quality control for digital mammography systems].
    Sommer A; Girnus R; Wendt B; Heindel W; Lenzen H
    Rofo; 2010 Sep; 182(9):788-92. PubMed ID: 20563958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Comparison of two automatic evaluation methods on Images of the CDMAM test phantom].
    Blendl C; Loos C; Eiben B
    Rofo; 2009 Jul; 181(7):637-43. PubMed ID: 19513964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Typetesting of physical characteristics of digital mammography systems for screening within the Flemish breast cancer screening programme.
    Thierens H; Bosmans H; Buls N; De Hauwere A; Bacher K; Jacobs J; Clerinx P
    Eur J Radiol; 2009 Jun; 70(3):539-48. PubMed ID: 18374533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Getting started with protocol for quality assurance of digital mammography in the clinical centre of Montenegro.
    Ivanovic S; Bosmans H; Mijovic S
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2015 Jul; 165(1-4):363-8. PubMed ID: 25862535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Digital mammography for screening and diagnosis of breast cancer: an overview.
    Van Ongeval Ch
    JBR-BTR; 2007; 90(3):163-6. PubMed ID: 17696081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Quality assurance in roentgen mammography. Comparison of recommended EUREF guidelines with relevant German regulations].
    Zaers J; van Woudenberg S; Brix G
    Radiologe; 1997 Aug; 37(8):617-20. PubMed ID: 9411478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Using a NPWE model observer to assess suitable image quality for a digital mammography quality assurance programme.
    Monnin P; Bochud FO; Verdun FR
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010; 139(1-3):459-62. PubMed ID: 20395413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Mammography screening in Germany].
    Diekmann S; Diekmann F
    Radiologe; 2008 Jan; 48(1):17-25. PubMed ID: 18030441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Film-screen combinations for mammography].
    Säbel M; Aichinger H
    Aktuelle Radiol; 1991 May; 1(3):105-12. PubMed ID: 1878377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. A comparison of mean glandular dose diagnostic reference levels within the all-digital Irish National Breast Screening Programme and the Irish Symptomatic Breast Services.
    O'Leary D; Rainford L
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Mar; 153(3):300-8. PubMed ID: 22740646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Quality assurance in mammography. Accreditation, legislation, and compliance with quality assurance standards.
    Hendrick RE
    Radiol Clin North Am; 1992 Jan; 30(1):243-55. PubMed ID: 1732931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.