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.
68 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7089296)
1. Performance of x-ray generators and unnecessary dose in mammography. Karila KT Radiology; 1982 Jul; 144(2):395-401. PubMed ID: 7089296 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Mammography -a guidance level and the present situation of mammographic dose-]. Terada H Igaku Butsuri; 2002; 22(2):65-73. PubMed ID: 12766282 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Evaluation of absorbed dose in mammography: monte carlo simulation studies. Doi K; Chan HP Radiology; 1980 Apr; 135(1):199-208. PubMed ID: 7360961 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Generators, x-ray tubes, and exposure geometry in mammography. Villafana T Radiographics; 1990 May; 10(3):539-54. PubMed ID: 2343172 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [The choice of the physical-technical conditions for the mammography examination]. Blinov NN; Gorelik FG Med Tekh; 2003; (5):15-8. PubMed ID: 14603844 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Evaluation of radiation dose, focal spot, and automatic exposure of newer film-screen mammography units. Kimme-Smith C; Bassett LW; Gold RH AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1987 Nov; 149(5):913-7. PubMed ID: 3499794 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Magnification mammography: a low-dose technique. Arnold BA; Eisenberg H; Bjarngard BE Radiology; 1979 Jun; 131(3):743-9. PubMed ID: 441382 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Thermoluminescent dosimeters for in vivo measurement of radiation exposure and related dose in mammography. Omran HA Radiol Technol; 1982; 53(5):383-92. PubMed ID: 6927768 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [Radiation exposure in x-ray mammography]. Säbel M; Aichinger U; Schulz-Wendtland R Rofo; 2001 Feb; 173(2):79-91. PubMed ID: 11253092 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [A bimetal anode with tungsten or rhodium? Comparative studies on image quality and dosage requirement in mammography]. Funke M; Hermann KP; Breiter N; Moritz J; Müller D; Grabbe E Rofo; 1995 Nov; 163(5):388-94. PubMed ID: 8527751 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Can the average glandular dose in routine digital mammography screening be reduced? A pilot study using revised image quality criteria. Hemdal B; Andersson I; Grahn A; Håkansson M; Ruschin M; Thilander-Klang A; Båth M; Börjesson S; Medin J; Tingberg A; Månsson LG; Mattsson S Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):383-8. PubMed ID: 15933142 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Quality assurance of mammography in the province of Trent]. Valentini A; Nassivera E; Voltolini A; Volani M; Gottardi S Radiol Med; 1993 Sep; 86(3):240-6. PubMed ID: 8210532 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Average glandular dose in routine mammography screening using a Sectra MicroDose Mammography unit. Hemdal B; Herrnsdorf L; Andersson I; Bengtsson G; Heddson B; Olsson M Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):436-43. PubMed ID: 15933152 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. An automatic x-ray exposure controller for mammography. Rose JH; Berdahl CM Radiology; 1977 Jan; 122(1):252-3. PubMed ID: 830345 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. [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] [Next] [New Search]