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

194 related items for PubMed ID: 14514123

  • 1. Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography: image contrast and lesion characterization.
    Yamada T, Ishibashi T, Sato A, Saito M, Saito H, Matsuhashi T, Takahashi S.
    Radiat Med; 2003; 21(4):166-71. PubMed ID: 14514123
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Comparative study in patients with microcalcifications: full-field digital mammography vs screen-film mammography.
    Fischer U, Baum F, Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Vosshenrich R, Grabbe E.
    Eur Radiol; 2002 Nov; 12(11):2679-83. PubMed ID: 12386757
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program.
    Karssemeijer N, Bluekens AM, Beijerinck D, Deurenberg JJ, Beekman M, Visser R, van Engen R, Bartels-Kortland A, Broeders MJ.
    Radiology; 2009 Nov; 253(2):353-8. PubMed ID: 19703851
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Screen-film mammography and soft-copy full-field digital mammography: comparison in the patients with microcalcifications.
    Kim HS, Han BK, Choo KS, Jeon YH, Kim JH, Choe YH.
    Korean J Radiol; 2005 Nov; 6(4):214-20. PubMed ID: 16374078
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography in Japanese population-based screening.
    Yamada T, Saito M, Ishibashi T, Tsuboi M, Matsuhashi T, Sato A, Saito H, Takahashi S, Onuki K, Ouchi N.
    Radiat Med; 2004 Nov; 22(6):408-12. PubMed ID: 15648457
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Magnification mammography: a comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for the detection of simulated small masses and microcalcifications.
    Hermann KP, Obenauer S, Funke M, Grabbe EH.
    Eur Radiol; 2002 Sep; 12(9):2188-91. PubMed ID: 12195468
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions.
    Obenauer S, Luftner-Nagel S, von Heyden D, Munzel U, Baum F, Grabbe E.
    Eur Radiol; 2002 Jul; 12(7):1697-702. PubMed ID: 12111060
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Moving into the digital era: a novel experience with the first full-field digital mammography system in Malaysia.
    Ranganathan S, Faridah Y, Ng KH.
    Singapore Med J; 2007 Sep; 48(9):804-7. PubMed ID: 17728959
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 10.