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.
3. [The quality of radiology services in five Latin American countries]. Fleitas I, Caspani CC, Borrás C, Plazas MC, Miranda AA, Brandan ME, de la Mora R. Rev Panam Salud Publica; 2006; 20(2-3):113-24. PubMed ID: 17199906 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of patient dose in some mammography centres in Iran. Paknyat A, Samarin ER, Jeshvaghane NA, Paydar R, Fasaei B, Karamloo A, Khosravi HR, Deevband MR. Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Sep; 147(1-2):192-5. PubMed ID: 21816723 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Review of the first 50 cases completed by the RACR mammography QA programme: phantom image quality, processor control and dose considerations. McLean D, Eckert M, Heard R, Chan W. Australas Radiol; 1997 Nov; 41(4):387-91. PubMed ID: 9409037 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Physicists in mammography--a historical perspective. Rothenberg LN, Haus AG. Med Phys; 1995 Nov; 22(11 Pt 2):1923-34. PubMed ID: 8587546 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Applicability of ACR breast dosimetry methodology to a digital mammography system. Tomon JJ, Johnson TE, Swenson KN, Schauer DA. Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):799-807. PubMed ID: 16878582 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I. Bloomquist AK, Yaffe MJ, Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Mawdsley GE, Bright S, Shen SZ, Mahesh M, Nickoloff EL, Fleischman RC, Williams MB, Maidment AD, Beideck DJ, Och J, Seibert JA. Med Phys; 2006 Mar; 33(3):719-36. PubMed ID: 16878575 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Effects of quality assurance regulatory enforcement on performance of mammography systems: evidence from large-scale surveys in Taiwan. Hwang YS, Tsai HY, Chen CC, Tsay PK, Pan HB, Hsu GC, Lin JH, Chui CS, Wan YL, Liu HL. AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Aug; 201(2):W307-12. PubMed ID: 23883245 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Exploratory survey of image quality on CR digital mammography imaging systems in Mexico. Gaona E, Rivera T, Arreola M, Franco J, Molina N, Alvarez B, Azorín CG, Casian G. Appl Radiat Isot; 2014 Jan; 83 Pt C():245-8. PubMed ID: 23938078 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Typetesting of physical characteristics of digital mammography systems: first experiences within the Flemish breast cancer screening programme. Thierens H, Bosmans H, Buls N, Bacher K, De Hauwere A, Jacobs J, Clerinx P. JBR-BTR; 2007 Jan; 90(3):159-62. PubMed ID: 17696080 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Application of wavelets to the evaluation of phantom images for mammography quality control. Alvarez M, Pina DR, Miranda JR, Duarte SB. Phys Med Biol; 2012 Nov 07; 57(21):7177-90. PubMed ID: 23060095 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Mammography quality assurance from A to Z. Farria DM, Bassett LW, Kimme-Smith C, DeBruhl N. Radiographics; 1994 Mar 07; 14(2):371-85. PubMed ID: 8190960 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparative study of dose values and image quality in mammography in the area of Madrid. Morán P, Chevalier M, Vanó E. Br J Radiol; 1994 Jun 07; 67(798):556-63. PubMed ID: 8032809 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]