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.
24. Evaluation of image quality of ultrasound scanners in medical diagnostics. Alasaarela E; Koivukangas J J Ultrasound Med; 1990 Jan; 9(1):23-34. PubMed ID: 2404131 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. C-mode scan and resolution improvement techniques for ultrasonic diagnosis. Ito KI; Itoh M; Yuta SI; Yokoi H; Inouye T IEEE Trans Biomed Eng; 1979 Jan; 26(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 422209 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. A novel composite material specifically developed for ultrasound bone phantoms: cortical, trabecular and skull. Wydra A; Maev RG Phys Med Biol; 2013 Nov; 58(22):N303-19. PubMed ID: 24171934 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Cine display of numerous static ultrasound images: a step toward automation of ultrasound studies. Doust BD; Berland LL Radiology; 1980 Jul; 136(1):227-8. PubMed ID: 7384504 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. A simple calibration and evaluation phantom for ultrasound scanners. McCarty K; Stewart W Ultrasound Med Biol; 1982; 8(4):393-401. PubMed ID: 7112725 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. A comparison of grey-scale image recording systems. Meire HB; Farrant P Br J Radiol; 1978 Dec; 51(612):968-73. PubMed ID: 737410 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Ultrasonic B-scan imaging: theory of image formation and a technique for restoration. Fatemi M; Kak AC Ultrason Imaging; 1980 Jan; 2(1):1-47. PubMed ID: 7189615 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. Ultrasonic echo imaging of tissues: instrumentation. Hill CR; Carpenter DA Br J Radiol; 1976 Mar; 49(579):238-43. PubMed ID: 1276590 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. High resolution ultrasonic imaging by controlled averaging of backscattered signals. Fay B Ultrasound Med Biol; 1983; 9(5):467-72. PubMed ID: 6676958 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Optical evaluation of ultrasonic scattering in animal tissue. Greguss P Ann N Y Acad Sci; 1976 Jan; 267():312-23. PubMed ID: 1064359 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. A comparison of the performance of commercial ultrasound breast scanners versus a laboratory instrument. Baum G J Clin Ultrasound; 1983 Oct; 11(8):405-13. PubMed ID: 6417169 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Analysis of B-scan speckle reduction by resolution limited filtering. Parker DL; Pryor TA Ultrason Imaging; 1982 Apr; 4(2):108-25. PubMed ID: 7201693 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. The use of an infrared touch-screen to control the sensitivity of ultrasound scanners in clinical practice. Pye SD; Elliott V; Marshall I; Millar D; Robertson S; McDicken WN; Wild SR Br J Radiol; 1989 Nov; 62(743):1014-6. PubMed ID: 2684325 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. A new ceiling suspension for ultrasound scanners. Holm HH; Holmkjaer P; Jensen F; Smith EH; Nielsen JS Ultrasound Med Biol; 1979; 5(1):91-3. PubMed ID: 483473 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Some scientific and technical aspects of medical ultrasonics. Chivers RC J Med Eng Technol; 1981 May; 5(3):128-33. PubMed ID: 7265158 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Addition of digital scan converters to commercial B-scanners. Goldstein A J Clin Ultrasound; 1979 Jun; 7(3):178. PubMed ID: 110836 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]