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 *

166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26500784)

  • 21. Film retakes in digital and conventional radiography.
    Akhtar W; Aslam M; Ali A; Mirza K; Ahmad N
    J Coll Physicians Surg Pak; 2008 Mar; 18(3):151-3. PubMed ID: 18460242
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Assessment of image rejection in digital radiography.
    Hasaneen M; AlHameli N; AlMinhali A; Alshehhi S; Salih S; Alomaim MM
    J Med Life; 2023 May; 16(5):731-735. PubMed ID: 37520472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Determination and Analysis of Film Reject Rate at Eight Selected Governmental Diagnostic X-Ray Facilities in Tigray Region, Northern Ethiopian.
    Arbese MY; Abebe TD; Mesele BA
    J Med Phys; 2018; 43(4):270-276. PubMed ID: 30636853
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Unified Database for Rejected Image Analysis Across Multiple Vendors in Radiography.
    Little KJ; Reiser I; Liu L; Kinsey T; Sánchez AA; Haas K; Mallory F; Froman C; Lu ZF
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2017 Feb; 14(2):208-216. PubMed ID: 27663061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The assessment of image quality and diagnostic value in X-ray images: a survey on radiographers' reasons for rejecting images.
    Kjelle E; Chilanga C
    Insights Imaging; 2022 Mar; 13(1):36. PubMed ID: 35244800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. An audit of rejected repeated x-ray films as a quality assurance element in a radiology department.
    Eze KC; Omodia N; Okegbunam B; Adewonyi T; Nzotta CC
    Niger J Clin Pract; 2008 Dec; 11(4):355-8. PubMed ID: 19320410
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Impact of Electronic Collimation on Reducing Unnecessary Patient Dose in Digital Radiography.
    Esmaeilian AM; Aliakbari S; Hejazi P; Jadidi M
    J Biomed Phys Eng; 2024 Oct; 14(5):457-468. PubMed ID: 39391283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. An audit of film reject and repeat rates in a department of dental radiology.
    Nixon PP; Thorogood J; Holloway J; Smith NJ
    Br J Radiol; 1995 Dec; 68(816):1304-7. PubMed ID: 8777590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Digital chest radiography.
    MacMahon H; Doi K
    Clin Chest Med; 1991 Mar; 12(1):19-32. PubMed ID: 2009743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Managing patient dose in digital radiology. A report of the International Commission on Radiological Protection.
    International Commission on Radiological Protection
    Ann ICRP; 2004; 34(1):1-73. PubMed ID: 15302167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. A comparison of image reject rates when using film, hard copy computed radiography and soft copy images on picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) workstations.
    Weatherburn GC; Bryan S; West M
    Br J Radiol; 1999 Jul; 72(859):653-60. PubMed ID: 10624322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Subjective image quality comparison between two digital dental radiographic systems and conventional dental film.
    Ajmal M; Elshinawy MI
    Saudi Dent J; 2014 Oct; 26(4):145-50. PubMed ID: 25382946
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The subjective image quality of direct digital and conventional panoramic radiography.
    Gijbels F; De Meyer AM; Bou Serhal C; Van den Bossche C; Declerck J; Persoons M; Jacobs R
    Clin Oral Investig; 2000 Sep; 4(3):162-7. PubMed ID: 11000322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Conversion of teaching file cases from film to digital format: a comparison between use of a diagnostic-quality digitizer and use of a flatbed scanner with transparency adapter.
    Bassignani MJ; Bubash-Faust L; Ciambotti J; Moran R; McIlhenny J
    Acad Radiol; 2003 May; 10(5):536-42. PubMed ID: 12755543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Efficacy of digital intra-oral radiography in clinical dentistry.
    Versteeg CH; Sanderink GC; van der Stelt PF
    J Dent; 1997; 25(3-4):215-24. PubMed ID: 9175348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Comparison of image quality using a X-ray stereotactical whole-body system and a direct flat-panel X-ray device in examinations of the pelvis and knee.
    Krug KB; Weber C; Schwabe H; Sinzig NM; Wein B; Müller D; Wegmann K; Peters S; Sendler V; Ewen K; Hellmich M; Maintz D
    Rofo; 2014 Jan; 186(1):67-76. PubMed ID: 23999782
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Comparison of digital direct readout radiography with conventional film-screen radiography for the recognition of pneumoconiosis in dust-exposed Chinese workers.
    Mao L; Laney AS; Wang ML; Sun X; Zhou S; Shi J; Shi H
    J Occup Health; 2011; 53(5):320-6. PubMed ID: 21778659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Two- and three-dimensional imaging modalities for the detection of caries. A comparison between film, digital radiography and tuned aperture computed tomography (TACT).
    Abreu Júnior M; Tyndall DA; Platin E; Ludlow JB; Phillips C
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1999 May; 28(3):152-7. PubMed ID: 10740469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Radiographers' Ability to Detect Low-Contrast Detail in Digital Radiography Systems.
    Alsleem H; Davidson R
    Radiol Technol; 2015; 87(1):29-37. PubMed ID: 26377266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.