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.
3. Legislative and regulatory mandates for mammography quality assurance. Fintor L; Alciati MH; Fischer R J Public Health Policy; 1995; 16(1):81-107. PubMed ID: 7738160 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Interest of a combination of film and screen reinforcer in mammography (author's transl)]. Berry M; Clément JF; Daniel G J Radiol Electrol Med Nucl; 1978 Jan; 59(1):39-44. PubMed ID: 641872 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Clinical evaluation of a new set of image quality criteria for mammography. Grahn A; Hemdal B; Andersson I; Ruschin M; Thilander-Klang A; Börjesson S; Tingberg A; Mattsson S; Håkansson M; Båth M; Månsson LG; Medin J; Wanninger F; Panzer W Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):389-94. PubMed ID: 15933143 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Dose requirement and definition of the image with new types of mammographic systems (author's transl)]. Frost D; Krause RA Strahlentherapie; 1980 Nov; 156(11):770-5. PubMed ID: 7434387 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [Data on the radiation exposure of the breast in mammography. Studies on a group of 1593 female patients]. Giera W; Paterok EM; Prestele H; Säbel M; Weishaar J Rontgenpraxis; 1982 Dec; 35(12):445-53. PubMed ID: 7157088 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Mammography screening: technology, radiation dose and risk, quality control, and benefits to society. A symposium conducted during the scientific assembly and annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America. Chicago, December 1988. Proceedings. Radiology; 1990 Mar; 174(3 Pt 1):627-56. PubMed ID: 2305042 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. [Dosage-reduced mammography. Comparative studies between the Kodak Definix Medical and Kodak Min R films]. Ellegast HH; Strasser E Rontgenpraxis; 1979 Jun; 32(6):143-8. PubMed ID: 462241 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Absorbed dose in mammography using three tungsten and three molybdenum target tubes. Palmer RC; Egan RL; Tanner BK; Barnette PA Radiology; 1971 Dec; 101(3):697-9. PubMed ID: 5129114 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. [Nuclear physics, radiation protection, roentgen technology. Roentgen exposure systems (review report)]. Friedrich C Radiol Diagn (Berl); 1978 Apr; 19(2):269-81. PubMed ID: 674617 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Repeat exposures: our little secret. McKinney WE Radiol Technol; 1994; 65(5):319-20. PubMed ID: 7755686 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Global quality control perspective for the physical and technical aspects of screen-film mammography--image quality and radiation dose. Ng KH; Jamal N; DeWerd L Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2006; 121(4):445-51. PubMed ID: 16709704 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Radiation exposure and image quality in xeromammography]. Säbel M Rontgenpraxis; 1982 Dec; 35(12):463-8. PubMed ID: 6760413 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Mammographic equipment, technique, and quality control. Friedrich MA Curr Opin Radiol; 1991 Aug; 3(4):571-8. PubMed ID: 1888654 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Letter: Variation of skin dose in mammography--a comparison of blue X-ray film (Medichrome) with conventional black and white (Kodak PE 4006). Stillman J; Palmer K Br J Radiol; 1975 Mar; 48(567):228-9. PubMed ID: 1125552 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. [Assessment of mammographic units in Poland in the view of current requirements of radiation protection regulations]. Bekas M; Pachocki KA; Rózycki Z; Wieprzowski K; Fabiszewska E Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig; 2006; 57(1):81-90. PubMed ID: 16900867 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]