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

501 related items for PubMed ID: 16192324

  • 1. Chest radiography with a flat-panel detector: image quality with dose reduction after copper filtration.
    Hamer OW, Sirlin CB, Strotzer M, Borisch I, Zorger N, Feuerbach S, Völk M.
    Radiology; 2005 Nov; 237(2):691-700. PubMed ID: 16192324
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Routine chest radiography using a flat-panel detector: image quality at standard detector dose and 33% dose reduction.
    Strotzer M, Völk M, Fründ R, Hamer O, Zorger N, Feuerbach S.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Jan; 178(1):169-71. PubMed ID: 11756114
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography.
    Bacher K, Smeets P, Bonnarens K, De Hauwere A, Verstraete K, Thierens H.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2003 Oct; 181(4):923-9. PubMed ID: 14500203
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 6. Image quality and radiation dose on digital chest imaging: comparison of amorphous silicon and amorphous selenium flat-panel systems.
    Bacher K, Smeets P, Vereecken L, De Hauwere A, Duyck P, De Man R, Verstraete K, Thierens H.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Sep; 187(3):630-7. PubMed ID: 16928923
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

  • 9. Simulated bone erosions in a hand phantom: detection with conventional screen-film technology versus cesium iodide-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector.
    Strotzer M, Völk M, Wild T, von Landenberg P, Feuerbach S.
    Radiology; 2000 May; 215(2):512-5. PubMed ID: 10796933
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

  • 12. Optimal beam quality for chest flat panel detector system: realistic phantom study.
    Kuwahara C, Aoki T, Oda N, Kawabata J, Sugimoto K, Kobayashi M, Fujii M, Korogi Y.
    Eur Radiol; 2019 Sep; 29(9):4538-4543. PubMed ID: 30737566
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Reducing the radiation dose during excretory urography: flat-panel silicon x-ray detector versus computed radiography.
    Zähringer M, Hesselmann V, Schulte O, Kamm KF, Braun W, Haupt G, Krug B, Lackner K.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2003 Oct; 181(4):931-7. PubMed ID: 14500204
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 16. Analysis of image quality in digital chest imaging.
    De Hauwere A, Bacher K, Smeets P, Verstraete K, Thierens H.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005 Oct; 117(1-3):174-7. PubMed ID: 16461499
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. Dual-energy cardiac imaging: an image quality and dose comparison for a flat-panel detector and x-ray image intensifier.
    Ducote JL, Xu T, Molloi S.
    Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jan 07; 52(1):183-96. PubMed ID: 17183135
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 19. An investigation of flat panel equipment variables on image quality with a dedicated cardiac phantom.
    Dragusin O, Bosmans H, Pappas C, Desmet W.
    Phys Med Biol; 2008 Sep 21; 53(18):4927-40. PubMed ID: 18711249
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 26.