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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

293 related items for PubMed ID: 10911785

  • 1. A comparison of fixed and variable kVp technique protocols for film-screen mammography.
    McParland BJ, Boyd MM.
    Br J Radiol; 2000 Jun; 73(870):613-26. PubMed ID: 10911785
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Image quality and dose in film-screen magnification mammography.
    McParland BJ.
    Br J Radiol; 2000 Oct; 73(874):1068-77. PubMed ID: 11271899
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Optimization of technique factors for a silicon diode array full-field digital mammography system and comparison to screen-film mammography with matched average glandular dose.
    Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Cutter GR.
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):334-40. PubMed ID: 12674233
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Dose and image quality in mammography with an automatic beam quality system.
    Young KC, Ramsdale ML, Rust A.
    Br J Radiol; 1996 Jun; 69(822):555-62. PubMed ID: 8757659
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Patient dose in digital mammography.
    Chevalier M, Morán P, Ten JI, Fernández Soto JM, Cepeda T, Vañó E.
    Med Phys; 2004 Sep; 31(9):2471-9. PubMed ID: 15487727
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Radiation dose reduction for augmentation mammography.
    Smathers RL, Boone JM, Lee LJ, Berns EA, Miller RA, Wright AM.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 May; 188(5):1414-21. PubMed ID: 17449790
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Experimental investigation of the dose and image quality characteristics of a digital mammography imaging system.
    Huda W, Sajewicz AM, Ogden KM, Dance DR.
    Med Phys; 2003 Mar; 30(3):442-8. PubMed ID: 12674245
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Influence of anode/filter material and tube potential on contrast, signal-to-noise ratio and average absorbed dose in mammography: a Monte Carlo study.
    Dance DR, Thilander AK, Sandborg M, Skinner CL, Castellano IA, Carlsson GA.
    Br J Radiol; 2000 Oct; 73(874):1056-67. PubMed ID: 11271898
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Optimization of tube potential-filter combinations for film-screen mammography: a contrast detail phantom study.
    Chida K, Zuguchi M, Sai M, Saito H, Yamada T, Ishibashi T, Ito D, Kimoto N, Kohzuki M, Takahashi S.
    Clin Imaging; 2005 Oct; 29(4):246-50. PubMed ID: 15967314
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Clinical evaluation of breast dose and the factors affecting breast dose in screen-film mammography.
    Ozdemir A.
    Diagn Interv Radiol; 2007 Sep; 13(3):134-9. PubMed ID: 17846987
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Influence of anode-filter combinations on image quality and radiation dose in 965 women undergoing mammography.
    Thilander-Klang AC, Ackerholm PH, Berlin IC, Bjurstam NG, Mattsson SL, Månsson LG, von Schéele C, Thunberg SJ.
    Radiology; 1997 May; 203(2):348-54. PubMed ID: 9114087
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Effect of automatic kV selection on dose and contrast for a mammographic X-ray system.
    Young KC, Ramsdale ML, Rust A, Cooke J.
    Br J Radiol; 1997 Oct; 70(838):1036-42. PubMed ID: 9404208
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. A technique optimization protocol and the potential for dose reduction in digital mammography.
    Ranger NT, Lo JY, Samei E.
    Med Phys; 2010 Mar; 37(3):962-9. PubMed ID: 20384232
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Technique factors and their relationship to radiation dose in pendant geometry breast CT.
    Boone JM, Kwan AL, Seibert JA, Shah N, Lindfors KK, Nelson TR.
    Med Phys; 2005 Dec; 32(12):3767-76. PubMed ID: 16475776
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. A survey of clinical factors and patient dose in mammography.
    Kruger RL, Schueler BA.
    Med Phys; 2001 Jul; 28(7):1449-54. PubMed ID: 11488578
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Radiation dose affected by mammographic composition and breast size: first application of a radiation dose management system for full-field digital mammography in Korean women.
    Baek JE, Kang BJ, Kim SH, Lee HS.
    World J Surg Oncol; 2017 Feb 02; 15(1):38. PubMed ID: 28153022
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Breast composition and radiographic breast equivalence.
    McLean D.
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 1997 Mar 02; 20(1):11-9. PubMed ID: 9141308
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Optimal beam quality selection based on contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose in digital mammography.
    Aminah M, Ng KH, Abdullah BJ, Jamal N.
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 2010 Dec 02; 33(4):329-34. PubMed ID: 20938762
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Mammography in New Zealand: radiation dose and image quality.
    Poletti JL, Williamson BD, Mitchell AW.
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 1991 Jun 02; 14(2):97-102. PubMed ID: 1747087
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Determination of average glandular dose with modern mammography units for two large groups of patients.
    Klein R, Aichinger H, Dierker J, Jansen JT, Joite-Barfuss S, Säbel M, Schulz-Wendtland R, Zoetelief J.
    Phys Med Biol; 1997 Apr 02; 42(4):651-71. PubMed ID: 9127443
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 15.