84 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21397423)
1. Analysis of patient dose in full field digital mammography.
Chen B; Wang Y; Sun X; Guo W; Zhao M; Cui G; Hu L; Li P; Ren Y; Feng J; Yu J
Eur J Radiol; 2012 May; 81(5):868-72. PubMed ID: 21397423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Patient dose in digital mammography.
Chevalier M; Morán P; Ten JI; Fernández Soto JM; Cepeda T; Vañó E
Med Phys; 2004 Sep; 31(9):2471-9. PubMed ID: 15487727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A survey of patient dose and clinical factors in a full-field digital mammography system.
Morán P; Chevalier M; Ten JI; Fernández Soto JM; Vañó E
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):375-9. PubMed ID: 15933140
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Dose reduction in automatic optimization parameter of full field digital mammography: breast phantom study.
Ko MS; Kim HH; Cha JH; Shin HJ; Kim JH; Kim MJ
J Breast Cancer; 2013 Mar; 16(1):90-6. PubMed ID: 23593088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose.
Berns EA; Hendrick RE; Cutter GR
Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):334-40. PubMed ID: 12674233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Average glandular dose in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
Olgar T; Kahn T; Gosch D
Rofo; 2012 Oct; 184(10):911-8. PubMed ID: 22711250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Intra-individual comparison of average glandular dose of two digital mammography units using different anode/filter combinations.
Engelken FJ; Meyer H; Juran R; Bick U; Fallenberg E; Diekmann F
Acad Radiol; 2009 Oct; 16(10):1272-80. PubMed ID: 19632866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Radiation exposure of digital breast tomosynthesis using an antiscatter grid compared with full-field digital mammography.
Paulis LE; Lobbes MB; Lalji UC; Gelissen N; Bouwman RW; Wildberger JE; Jeukens CR
Invest Radiol; 2015 Oct; 50(10):679-85. PubMed ID: 26011823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Radiation exposure in full-field digital mammography with a selenium flat-panel detector].
Gosch D; Jendrass S; Scholz M; Kahn T
Rofo; 2006 Jul; 178(7):693-7. PubMed ID: 16761214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Patient doses from screen-film and full-field digital mammography in a population-based screening programme.
Hauge IH; Pedersen K; Sanderud A; Hofvind S; Olerud HM
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2012 Jan; 148(1):65-73. PubMed ID: 21335333
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Radiation exposure of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography compared with full-field digital mammography.
Jeukens CR; Lalji UC; Meijer E; Bakija B; Theunissen R; Wildberger JE; Lobbes MB
Invest Radiol; 2014 Oct; 49(10):659-65. PubMed ID: 24872005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Average glandular dose with amorphous silicon full-field digital mammography - Clinical results.
Hermann KP; Obenauer S; Marten K; Kehbel S; Fischer U; Grabbe E
Rofo; 2002 Jun; 174(6):696-9. PubMed ID: 12063597
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography.
James JR; Pavlicek W; Hanson JA; Boltz TF; Patel BK
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Feb; 208(2):362-372. PubMed ID: 28112559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of anode/filter combinations in digital mammography with respect to the average glandular dose.
Uhlenbrock DF; Mertelmeier T
Rofo; 2009 Mar; 181(3):249-54. PubMed ID: 19241602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Evaluation of mean glandular dose in a full-field digital mammography unit in Tabriz, Iran.
Alizadeh Riabi H; Mehnati P; Mesbahi A
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010 Dec; 142(2-4):222-7. PubMed ID: 20823039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Dose to population as a metric in the design of optimised exposure control in digital mammography.
Klausz R; Shramchenko N
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):369-74. PubMed ID: 15933139
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Relationship between detector size and the need for extra images and their effect on radiation exposure in digital mammography screening.
Entz K; Sommer A; Heindel W; Lenzen H
Rofo; 2014 Sep; 186(9):868-75. PubMed ID: 24563411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Radiation dose affected by mammographic composition and breast size: first application of a radiation dose management system for full-field digital mammography in Korean women.
Baek JE; Kang BJ; Kim SH; Lee HS
World J Surg Oncol; 2017 Feb; 15(1):38. PubMed ID: 28153022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 'In vivo' average glandular dose evaluation: one-to-one comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography.
Cavagnetto F; Taccini G; Rosasco R; Bampi R; Calabrese M; Tagliafico A
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Nov; 157(1):53-61. PubMed ID: 23734057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Experimental investigations for dose reduction by optimizing the radiation quality for digital mammography with an a-Se detector].
Schulz-Wendtland R; Hermann KP; Wenkel E; Böhner C; Lell M; Dassel MS; Bautz WA
Rofo; 2007 May; 179(5):487-91. PubMed ID: 17436182
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
