148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29342291)
1. PORTUGUESE STUDY OF MEAN GLANDULAR DOSE IN MAMMOGRAPHY AND COMPARISON WITH EUROPEAN REFERENCES.
Sá Dos Reis C; Fartaria MJ; Garcia Alves JH; Pascoal A
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2018 Jun; 179(4):391-399. PubMed ID: 29342291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Mammography radiation dose: initial results from Serbia based on mean glandular dose assessment for phantoms and patients.
Ciraj-Bjelac O; Beciric S; Arandjic D; Kosutic D; Kovacevic M
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2010 Jun; 140(1):75-80. PubMed ID: 20159918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Dosimetric characterization and organ dose assessment in digital breast tomosynthesis: Measurements and Monte Carlo simulations using voxel phantoms.
Baptista M; Di Maria S; Barros S; Figueira C; Sarmento M; Orvalho L; Vaz P
Med Phys; 2015 Jul; 42(7):3788-800. PubMed ID: 26133581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Application of European protocol in the evaluation of contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose for two digital mammography systems.
Muhogora WE; Devetti A; Padovani R; Msaki P; Bonutti F
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):231-6. PubMed ID: 18283065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Dose management software implementation in mammography.
Samara ET; Tsapaki V; Sramek D
Phys Med; 2019 Dec; 68():88-95. PubMed ID: 31765886
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Investigation of breast dose in five screening mammography centres in Greece.
Tsapaki V; Tsalafoutas IA; Poga V; Louizi A; Kottou S; Koulentianos E
J Radiol Prot; 2008 Sep; 28(3):337-46. PubMed ID: 18714130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A survey on mean glandular dose in mammography examination and the factors affecting it in Shahid Sadoughi Hospital, Yazd, Iran.
Asadollahzadeh N; Razavi S; Zare MH
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2024 Jun; 200(9):809-821. PubMed ID: 38811346
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Towards proposition of a diagnostic reference level for mammographic examination in the greater Khorasan Province, Iran.
Bahreyni Toossi MT; Zare H; Bayani Roodi Sh; Hashemi M; Akbari F; Malekzadeh M
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Jun; 155(1):96-9. PubMed ID: 23209184
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: Glandular dose estimation using a Monte Carlo code and voxel phantom.
Tzamicha E; Yakoumakis E; Tsalafoutas IA; Dimitriadis A; Georgiou E; Tsapaki V; Chalazonitis A
Phys Med; 2015 Nov; 31(7):785-91. PubMed ID: 25900891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Regression Analysis between the Different Breast Dose Quantities Reported in Digital Mammography and Patient Age, Breast Thickness, and Acquisition Parameters.
Dhou S; Dalah E; AlGhafeer R; Hamidu A; Obaideen A
J Imaging; 2022 Jul; 8(8):. PubMed ID: 36005454
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Mean glandular dose in digital mamography in women with breast implants.
Couto LS; Freitas-Junior R; Correa RS; Peixoto JE; Almeida CD; Rodrigues DCN; Glassman LM; Soares LR
J Radiol Prot; 2019 Apr; 39(2):498-510. PubMed ID: 30812019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Proposed DRLs for mammography in Switzerland.
Dupont L; Aberle C; Botsikas D; Ith M; Lima TVM; Menz R; Monnin P; Poletti PA; Presilla S; Schegerer A; Stoica LC; Trueb P; Sans Merce M
J Radiol Prot; 2024 May; 44(2):. PubMed ID: 38530290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of full field digital (FFD) and computed radiography (CR) mammography systems in Greece.
Kalathaki M; Hourdakis CJ; Economides S; Tritakis P; Kalyvas N; Simantirakis G; Manousaridis G; Kaisas I; Kamenopoulou V
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Sep; 147(1-2):202-5. PubMed ID: 21821614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Results of a 2011 national questionnaire for investigation of mean glandular dose from mammography in Japan.
Asada Y; Suzuki S; Minami K; Shirakawa S
J Radiol Prot; 2014 Mar; 34(1):125-32. PubMed ID: 24334729
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. INSTITUTIONAL BREAST DOSES IN DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY.
Lekatou A; Metaxas V; Messaris G; Antzele P; Tzavellas G; Panayiotakis G
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2019 Dec; 185(2):239-251. PubMed ID: 30753684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Assessment of the uterine dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
Cepeda Martins AR; Di Maria S; Afonso J; Pereira M; Pereira J; Vaz P
Radiography (Lond); 2022 May; 28(2):333-339. PubMed ID: 34565679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Mammography Dose Survey Using International Quality Standards.
Boujemaa S; Bosmans H; Bentayeb F
J Med Imaging Radiat Sci; 2019 Dec; 50(4):529-535. PubMed ID: 31420271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Investigation of mean glandular dose in diagnostic mammography in China.
Du X; Wang J; Yang CY; Zhou XF; Chen W; Cao XJ; Zhou YY; Le Yu N
Biomed Environ Sci; 2014 May; 27(5):396-9. PubMed ID: 24827723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
