148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21094455)
1. Imaging at higher magnetic fields: 3 T versus 1.5 T.
Boll DT; Merkle EM
Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am; 2010 Aug; 18(3):549-64, xi-xii. PubMed ID: 21094455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Motion artifact control in body MR imaging.
Barish MA; Jara H
Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am; 1999 May; 7(2):289-301. PubMed ID: 10382162
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Hepatic magnetic resonance imaging: new techniques and contrast agents.
Mahfouz AE; Hamm B; Taupitz M
Endoscopy; 1997 Aug; 29(6):504-14. PubMed ID: 9342568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. High-resolution whole-body magnetic resonance imaging applications at 1.5 and 3 Tesla: a comparative study.
Schmidt GP; Wintersperger B; Graser A; Baur-Melnyk A; Reiser MF; Schoenberg SO
Invest Radiol; 2007 Jun; 42(6):449-59. PubMed ID: 17507818
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Feasibility of cardiac gating free of interference with electro-magnetic fields at 1.5 Tesla, 3.0 Tesla and 7.0 Tesla using an MR-stethoscope.
Frauenrath T; Hezel F; Heinrichs U; Kozerke S; Utting JF; Kob M; Butenweg C; Boesiger P; Niendorf T
Invest Radiol; 2009 Sep; 44(9):539-47. PubMed ID: 19652614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Liver MR imaging: 1.5T versus 3T.
Ramalho M; Altun E; Herédia V; Zapparoli M; Semelka R
Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am; 2007 Aug; 15(3):321-47, vi. PubMed ID: 17893053
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Three-dimensional magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue (MOCART) score assessed with an isotropic three-dimensional true fast imaging with steady-state precession sequence at 3.0 Tesla.
Welsch GH; Zak L; Mamisch TC; Resinger C; Marlovits S; Trattnig S
Invest Radiol; 2009 Sep; 44(9):603-12. PubMed ID: 19692843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. In vitro assessment of needle artifacts with an interactive three-dimensional MR fluoroscopy system.
Thomas C; Springer F; Röthke M; Rempp H; Clasen S; Fritz J; Claussen CD; Pereira PL
J Vasc Interv Radiol; 2010 Mar; 21(3):375-80. PubMed ID: 20171560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Intraindividual comparison of image quality in MR urography at 1.5 and 3 tesla in an animal model.
Regier M; Nolte-Ernsting C; Adam G; Kemper J
Rofo; 2008 Oct; 180(10):915-21. PubMed ID: 19238642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Microimaging at 14 tesla using GESEPI for removal of magnetic susceptibility artifacts in T(2)(*)-weighted image contrast.
Yang QX; Smith MB; Briggs RW; Rycyna RE
J Magn Reson; 1999 Nov; 141(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 10527737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Magnetic resonance imaging and the reduction of motion artifacts: review of the principles.
Van de Walle R; Lemahieu I; Achten E
Technol Health Care; 1997 Dec; 5(6):419-35. PubMed ID: 9696161
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Assessment of parallel acquisition techniques in adrenal magnetic resonance imaging: does increased temporal resolution significantly improve visualization of adrenal lesions?
Boll DT; Hillenbrand CM; Lewin JS; Merkle EM
Acad Radiol; 2004 Jul; 11(7):809-16. PubMed ID: 15217599
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Noncontrast-enhanced three-dimensional magnetic resonance aortography of the thorax at 3.0 T using respiratory-compensated T1-weighted k-space segmented gradient-echo imaging with radial data sampling: preliminary study.
Amano Y; Takahama K; Kumita S
Invest Radiol; 2009 Sep; 44(9):548-52. PubMed ID: 19652612
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 3.0-T functional brain imaging: a 5-year experience.
Scarabino T; Giannatempo GM; Popolizio T; Tosetti M; d'Alesio V; Esposito F; Di Salle F; Di Costanzo A; Bertolino A; Maggialetti A; Salvolini U
Radiol Med; 2007 Feb; 112(1):97-112. PubMed ID: 17310287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiography with Gd-BOPTA and Gd-EOB-DTPA in healthy subjects.
Dahlström N; Persson A; Albiin N; Smedby O; Brismar TB
Acta Radiol; 2007 May; 48(4):362-8. PubMed ID: 17453513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Hepatic MR imaging techniques, optimization, and artifacts.
Guglielmo FF; Mitchell DG; Roth CG; Deshmukh S
Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am; 2014 Aug; 22(3):263-82. PubMed ID: 25086929
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Abdominal magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T what is the ultimate gain in signal-to-noise ratio?
Schindera ST; Merkle EM; Dale BM; Delong DM; Nelson RC
Acad Radiol; 2006 Oct; 13(10):1236-43. PubMed ID: 16979073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. MR imaging at 3.0 T in children: technical differences, safety issues, and initial experience.
Chavhan GB; Babyn PS; Singh M; Vidarsson L; Shroff M
Radiographics; 2009; 29(5):1451-66. PubMed ID: 19755605
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Abdominal MR imaging at 3T.
Merkle EM; Dale BM; Paulson EK
Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am; 2006 Feb; 14(1):17-26. PubMed ID: 16530632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Magnetic resonance imaging of the cranial nerves in the posterior fossa: a comparative study of t2-weighted spin-echo sequences at 1.5 and 3.0 tesla.
Fischbach F; Müller M; Bruhn H
Acta Radiol; 2008 Apr; 49(3):358-63. PubMed ID: 18365827
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
