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.
128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23938078)
1. Exploratory survey of image quality on CR digital mammography imaging systems in Mexico. Gaona E; Rivera T; Arreola M; Franco J; Molina N; Alvarez B; Azorín CG; Casian G Appl Radiat Isot; 2014 Jan; 83 Pt C():245-8. PubMed ID: 23938078 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Exploratory survey of initial image quality in new digital mammography units prior to use in patients in Mexico. Gaona E; Rivera T; Molina-Frechero N; Franco JG Appl Radiat Isot; 2018 Nov; 141():266-269. PubMed ID: 30049552 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. [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]
8. Artifacts in digital mammography. Van Ongeval C; Jacobs J; Bosmans H JBR-BTR; 2008; 91(6):262-3. PubMed ID: 19203002 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A survey on performance status of mammography machines: image quality and dosimetry studies using a standard mammography imaging phantom. Sharma R; Sharma SD; Mayya YS Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2012 Jul; 150(3):325-33. PubMed ID: 22090414 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cone-beam CT for breast imaging: Radiation dose, breast coverage, and image quality. O'Connell A; Conover DL; Zhang Y; Seifert P; Logan-Young W; Lin CF; Sahler L; Ning R AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Aug; 195(2):496-509. PubMed ID: 20651210 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of results from quality control of physical parameters and results from clinical evaluation of mammographic images for the mammography screening facilities in Poland. Fabiszewska E; Grabska I; Jankowska K; Wesolowska E; Bulski W Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Sep; 147(1-2):206-9. PubMed ID: 21824870 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Digital versus screen-film mammography: a retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program. Heddson B; Rönnow K; Olsson M; Miller D Eur J Radiol; 2007 Dec; 64(3):419-25. PubMed ID: 17383841 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Image quality, threshold contrast and mean glandular dose in CR mammography. Jakubiak RR; Gamba HR; Neves EB; Peixoto JE Phys Med Biol; 2013 Sep; 58(18):6565-83. PubMed ID: 24002695 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Status of mammography after the Digital Mammography Imaging Screening Trial: digital versus film. Dershaw DD Breast J; 2006; 12(2):99-102. PubMed ID: 16509833 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of dry laser printer versus paper printer in full-field digital mammography. Liang Z; Du X; Guo X; Rong D; Kang R; Mao G; Liu J; Li K Acta Radiol; 2010 Apr; 51(3):235-9. PubMed ID: 20092369 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Implementation of the European protocol for quality control of the technical aspects of mammography screening in Bulgaria. Vassileva J; Avramova-Cholakova S; Dimov A; Lichev A Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):403-5. PubMed ID: 15933146 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology. Pisano ED; Gatsonis CA; Yaffe MJ; Hendrick RE; Tosteson AN; Fryback DG; Bassett LW; Baum JK; Conant EF; Jong RA; Rebner M; D'Orsi CJ Radiology; 2005 Aug; 236(2):404-12. PubMed ID: 15961755 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Optimizing Digital Mammographic Image Quality for Full-Field Digital Detectors: Artifacts Encountered during the QC Process. Jayadevan R; Armada MJ; Shaheen R; Mulcahy C; Slanetz PJ Radiographics; 2015; 35(7):2080-9. PubMed ID: 26562238 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]