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 *

116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2819691)

  • 1. Requirements for quality breast cancer detection. Technical quality control.
    Hendrick RE
    Cancer; 1989 Dec; 64(12 Suppl):2710-7. PubMed ID: 2819691
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Quality assurance in mammography.
    Dodd GD
    Cancer; 1989 Dec; 64(12 Suppl):2707-9. PubMed ID: 2819690
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Clinical considerations in selection of dedicated mammography units.
    Feig SA; Galkin BM; Muir HD
    Recent Results Cancer Res; 1987; 105():15-8. PubMed ID: 3589129
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. [Dosimetric and qualitative evaluations of the use of rhodium filtration in mammography].
    Burke P; Luparia E; Frigerio A; Marra V; Milani R; Di Benedetto A; Simeone F
    Radiol Med; 1994 Sep; 88(3):295-300. PubMed ID: 7938738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Quality control programme in mammography: second level quality controls.
    Nassivera E; Nardin L
    Br J Radiol; 1997 Jun; 70(834):612-8. PubMed ID: 9227255
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Technical developments in mammography.
    Yaffe MJ; Mainprize JG; Jong RA
    Health Phys; 2008 Nov; 95(5):599-611. PubMed ID: 18849694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [A program devoted to dose and quality in mammography (DQM)].
    Rimondi O; Gambaccini M; Indovina P; Candini G
    Radiol Med; 1986 Mar; 72(3):116-20. PubMed ID: 3704212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Imaging capabilities and dose considerations of different mammographic units.
    Galkin BM; Feig SA; Frasca P; Muir HD; Soriano RZ
    Recent Results Cancer Res; 1987; 105():25-30. PubMed ID: 3589131
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Image quality in mammography: physical and technical limitations.
    Nielsen B
    Recent Results Cancer Res; 1987; 105():1-14. PubMed ID: 3296052
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Technical quality control practices in mammography screening programs in 22 countries.
    Hendrick RE; Klabunde C; Grivegnee A; Pou G; Ballard-Barbash R
    Int J Qual Health Care; 2002 Jun; 14(3):219-26. PubMed ID: 12108532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Radiological guidelines for the detection of early breast cancer: a review.
    Van den Bosch H; Seynaeve P; Kockx MM; Storms JL
    J Belge Radiol; 1990 Oct; 73(5):339-56. PubMed ID: 2273042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Implementing digital quality control in a breast center.
    Parikh J; Fanus D
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2004 Nov; 1(11):854-60. PubMed ID: 17411717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Laser printers in digital mammography.
    Bogucki TM; Haus AG
    Adm Radiol J; 1997; 16(6-7):14-8. PubMed ID: 10170267
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [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]  

  • 18. Breast radiography: phantom, equipment performance, and radiation dosage comparisons for twenty-eight major mammography centers in the midwest. Work in progress.
    Gannon FE; Fields T; Griffith CR; Hubbard LB; Broadbent MV; Stanton L
    Radiology; 1983 Nov; 149(2):579-82. PubMed ID: 6622706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Why MQSA? Why now?
    Arcarese JS
    Radiol Technol; 1994; 66(1):53-6. PubMed ID: 7997527
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of mammographic screen-film systems.
    Arnold BA; Webster EW; Kalisher L
    Radiology; 1978 Oct; 129(1):179-85. PubMed ID: 693873
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.