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

307 related items for PubMed ID: 16461533

  • 21. Dose performance evaluation of a charge coupled device and a flat-panel digital fluoroscopy system recently installed in an interventional cardiology laboratory.
    Tsapaki V, Kottou S, Kollaros N, Dafnomili P, Kyriakidis Z, Neofotistou V.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2004; 111(3):297-304. PubMed ID: 15266080
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 22. Retrospective analysis of a detector fault for a full field digital mammography system.
    Marshall NW.
    Phys Med Biol; 2006 Nov 07; 51(21):5655-73. PubMed ID: 17047276
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 23. Development and application of programs to measure modulation transfer function, noise power spectrum and detective quantum efficiency.
    Padgett R, Kotre CJ.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005 Nov 07; 117(1-3):283-7. PubMed ID: 16461517
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 24. Comparison of entrance exposure and signal-to-noise ratio between an SBDX prototype and a wide-beam cardiac angiographic system.
    Speidel MA, Wilfley BP, Star-Lack JM, Heanue JA, Betts TD, Van Lysel MS.
    Med Phys; 2006 Aug 07; 33(8):2728-43. PubMed ID: 16964848
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 25. Status and prospects of digital detector technology for CR and DR.
    Neitzel U.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005 Aug 07; 114(1-3):32-8. PubMed ID: 15933078
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 26. Chest radiography: a comparison of image quality and effective dose using four digital systems.
    Pascoal A, Lawinski CP, Mackenzie A, Tabakov S, Lewis CA.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005 Aug 07; 114(1-3):273-7. PubMed ID: 15933121
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 27. The Monte Carlo evaluation of noise and resolution properties of granular phosphor screens.
    Liaparinos PF, Kandarakis IS.
    Phys Med Biol; 2009 Feb 21; 54(4):859-74. PubMed ID: 19141882
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 28. Characterization of the effects of the FineView algorithm for full field digital mammography.
    Urbanczyk H, McDonagh E, Marshall NW, Castellano I.
    Phys Med Biol; 2012 Apr 07; 57(7):1987-2003. PubMed ID: 22429938
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 29. [An experience of the clinical study with angiography system using a Flat Panel Detector].
    Okusako K, Shogaki M, Yokoyama K, Ogawa T, Tanaka K, Ichida T, Kishimoto K, Hatagawa M, Okuyama K, Kudoh H, Tanaka S, Nakamura K, Ikeda S, Suzuki K.
    Igaku Butsuri; 2002 Apr 07; 22(4):255-63. PubMed ID: 12766271
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 30. Quality control of equipment used in digital and interventional radiology.
    Zoetelief J, van Soldt RT, Suliman II, Jansen JT, Bosmans H.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005 Apr 07; 117(1-3):277-82. PubMed ID: 16461518
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 31. The design and imaging characteristics of dynamic, solid-state, flat-panel x-ray image detectors for digital fluoroscopy and fluorography.
    Cowen AR, Davies AG, Sivananthan MU.
    Clin Radiol; 2008 Oct 07; 63(10):1073-85. PubMed ID: 18774353
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 32. Patient dosimetry and image quality in digital radiology from online audit of the X-ray system.
    Vano E, Fernandez JM, Ten JI, Gonzalez L, Guibelalde E, Prieto C.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005 Oct 07; 117(1-3):199-203. PubMed ID: 16461529
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 33. Advances in computed radiography systems and their physical imaging characteristics.
    Cowen AR, Davies AG, Kengyelics SM.
    Clin Radiol; 2007 Dec 07; 62(12):1132-41. PubMed ID: 17981160
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 34. [New realities in the modern X-ray technology].
    Blinov NN, Mazurov AI.
    Med Tekh; 2003 Dec 07; (5):3-6. PubMed ID: 14603840
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 35. Subjective and objective measures of image quality in digital fluoroscopy.
    Walsh C, Dowling A, Meade A, Malone J.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005 Dec 07; 117(1-3):34-7. PubMed ID: 16461534
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 36. [Digital TV tomosynthesis--system development, digital image processing and clinical applications].
    Sone S.
    Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1990 Dec 25; 50(12):1473-84. PubMed ID: 2089361
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 37. Investigation of possible methods for equipment self-tests in digital radiology.
    Zoetelief J, Idris HH, Jansen JT.
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005 Dec 25; 117(1-3):269-73. PubMed ID: 16461526
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 38. Digital x-ray: unwavering commitment collides with monumental challenges.
    Freiherr G.
    Diagn Imaging (San Franc); 1999 Nov 25; Suppl Digital():D4-7. PubMed ID: 10724732
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 39. 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]

  • 40. Radiation dose and image quality for paediatric interventional cardiology.
    Vano E, Ubeda C, Leyton F, Miranda P.
    Phys Med Biol; 2008 Aug 07; 53(15):4049-62. PubMed ID: 18612174
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]
    of 16.