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 *

117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8079669)

  • 1. Quality control of bone densitometry in a national health survey (NHANES III) using three mobile examination centers.
    Wahner HW; Looker A; Dunn WL; Walters LC; Hauser MF; Novak C
    J Bone Miner Res; 1994 Jun; 9(6):951-60. PubMed ID: 8079669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Precision of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry: development of quality control rules and their application in longitudinal studies.
    Orwoll ES; Oviatt SK; Biddle JA
    J Bone Miner Res; 1993 Jun; 8(6):693-9. PubMed ID: 8328311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Precision and sensitivity of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in spinal osteoporosis.
    Pouilles JM; Tremollieres F; Todorovsky N; Ribot C
    J Bone Miner Res; 1991 Sep; 6(9):997-1002. PubMed ID: 1789144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The effect of measurement of the contralateral hip if the spine is not included in the bone mineral density analysis.
    Cole R; Larson J
    J Clin Densitom; 2006; 9(2):210-6. PubMed ID: 16785083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Universal standardization for dual x-ray absorptiometry: patient and phantom cross-calibration results.
    Genant HK; Grampp S; Glüer CC; Faulkner KG; Jergas M; Engelke K; Hagiwara S; Van Kuijk C
    J Bone Miner Res; 1994 Oct; 9(10):1503-14. PubMed ID: 7817795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Pattern of periprosthetic bone remodeling around stable uncemented tapered hip stems: a prospective 84-month follow-up study and a median 156-month cross-sectional study with DXA.
    Aldinger PR; Sabo D; Pritsch M; Thomsen M; Mau H; Ewerbeck V; Breusch SJ
    Calcif Tissue Int; 2003 Aug; 73(2):115-21. PubMed ID: 14565592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Reproducibility of DXA absorptiometry: a model for bone loss estimates.
    Fuleihan GE; Testa MA; Angell JE; Porrino N; Leboff MS
    J Bone Miner Res; 1995 Jul; 10(7):1004-14. PubMed ID: 7484275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The effects of analytic software and scan analysis technique on the comparison of dual X-ray absorptiometry with dual photon absorptiometry of the hip in the elderly.
    Kiel DP; Mercier CA; Dawson-Hughes B; Cali C; Hannan MT; Anderson JJ
    J Bone Miner Res; 1995 Jul; 10(7):1130-6. PubMed ID: 7484290
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Relationship between bone turnover and bone density at the proximal femur in stroke patients.
    Paker N; Bugdayci D; Tekdos D; Dere C; Kaya B
    J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis; 2009; 18(2):139-43. PubMed ID: 19251190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Longitudinal precision of dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in a multicenter study. The Nafarelin/Bone Study Group.
    Orwoll ES; Oviatt SK
    J Bone Miner Res; 1991 Feb; 6(2):191-7. PubMed ID: 2028837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Universal standardization of bone density measurements: a method with optimal properties for calibration among several instruments.
    Hui SL; Gao S; Zhou XH; Johnston CC; Lu Y; Glüer CC; Grampp S; Genant H
    J Bone Miner Res; 1997 Sep; 12(9):1463-70. PubMed ID: 9286763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Bone mineral density reference range in Estonia: a comparison with the standard database (NHANES III).
    Kull M; Kallikorm R; Lember M
    J Clin Densitom; 2009; 12(4):468-74. PubMed ID: 19880053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Discordant normal ranges for proximal femur bone density in Australia.
    Pocock N; Culton N; Noakes K; Harmelin D
    Osteoporos Int; 2001; 12(7):576-80. PubMed ID: 11527056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An unexpected change in DXA calibration not detected by routine quality control checks.
    Blake GM; Preston NG; Patel R; Herd RJ; Fogelman I
    Osteoporos Int; 1999; 9(2):115-20. PubMed ID: 10367037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Quality control of bone densitometry: precision, reproducibility, and clinical application].
    Gajardo H; Barrera G
    Rev Med Chil; 1998 Jan; 126(1):56-62. PubMed ID: 9629755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Calibration and standardization of bone mineral densitometers.
    Kelly TL; Slovik DM; Neer RM
    J Bone Miner Res; 1989 Oct; 4(5):663-9. PubMed ID: 2816511
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Enhanced precision with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry.
    Mazess R; Chesnut CH; McClung M; Genant H
    Calcif Tissue Int; 1992 Jul; 51(1):14-7. PubMed ID: 1393769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Instrument performance in bone density testing at five Australian centres.
    Khan KM; Henzell SL; Broderick C; Prince RL; Saul A; Lomman J; Wark JD
    Aust N Z J Med; 1997 Oct; 27(5):526-30. PubMed ID: 9404582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Femur BMD bias associated with DPX-IQ reanalysis of DPX-acquired scan files.
    Phillipov G; Seaborn CJ
    Osteoporos Int; 2000; 11(2):167-70. PubMed ID: 10793876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Quality control of DXA instruments in multicenter trials.
    Faulkner KG; McClung MR
    Osteoporos Int; 1995; 5(4):218-27. PubMed ID: 7492859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.