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

104 related items for PubMed ID: 1439016

  • 21. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 22. Evaluation of a new mammographic film: methods and considerations.
    Tsalafoutas OA, Kolovos CA, Tsapaki V, Betsou S, Koliakou E, Maniatis PN, Xenofos S.
    Health Phys; 2008 Apr; 94(4):338-44. PubMed ID: 18332725
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 23. Sensitometric responses of selected medical radiographic films.
    Kofler JM, Gray JE.
    Radiology; 1991 Dec; 181(3):879-83. PubMed ID: 1947114
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 24. Increasing the utility of the mammographic phantom image.
    Bednarek DR, Rudin S.
    Radiology; 1996 Nov; 201(2):572-3. PubMed ID: 8888262
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 25. Consistency of film optical density in mammographic screening programmes.
    Law J.
    Br J Radiol; 1996 Apr; 69(820):306-10. PubMed ID: 8665129
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 26.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 27. Characterization of the reciprocity law failure in three mammography screen-film systems.
    de Almeida A, Sobol WT, Barnes GT.
    Med Phys; 1999 May; 26(5):682-8. PubMed ID: 10360527
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 28.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 29.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 30. Quality control of the automatic processor.
    Legg LM.
    Compend Contin Educ Dent; 2001 Feb; 22(2):135-8, 140-2; quiz 144. PubMed ID: 11911065
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 31. [Quality assurance through constancy control for x-ray film processors (author's transl)].
    Weberling R.
    Rontgenblatter; 1982 Jun; 35(6):248-54. PubMed ID: 7089438
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 32.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 33.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 34.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 35. The evaluation of a clinical thermometer for measuring developer temperature in automatic film processors.
    Wilson WB, Haus AG, Nierman C, Lillie R, Batz T, Moore R.
    Med Phys; 1993 Jun; 20(3):823-4. PubMed ID: 8350843
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 36.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 37. Effect of developer temperature changes on the sensitometric properties of direct exposure and screen-film imaging systems.
    Kircos LT, Staninec M, Chou LS.
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1989 Feb; 18(1):11-4. PubMed ID: 2599232
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 38. Sensitometric and archival evaluation of Kodak RA films in dental automatic processing.
    Thunthy KH, Yeadon WR, Winberg R.
    Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1994 Apr; 77(4):427-30. PubMed ID: 8015810
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 39.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 40. Comparison of light and x-ray sensitometric responses of double-emulsion films for different processing conditions.
    Blendl C, Buhr E.
    Med Phys; 2001 Dec; 28(12):2420-6. PubMed ID: 11797944
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]
    of 6.