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

99 related items for PubMed ID: 1953502

  • 1. Sensitometric evaluation of some mammographic film-screen combinations.
    McLean D.
    Australas Phys Eng Sci Med; 1991 Sep; 14(3):157-62. PubMed ID: 1953502
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. An evaluation of the effect of processing conditions on mammographic film contrast, fog levels and speed.
    McLean D.
    Australas Radiol; 1992 Aug; 36(3):234-7. PubMed ID: 1445107
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Image quality and breast dose of 24 screen-film combinations for mammography.
    Dimakopoulou AD, Tsalafoutas IA, Georgiou EK, Yakoumakis EN.
    Br J Radiol; 2006 Feb; 79(938):123-9. PubMed ID: 16489193
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 6.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 8. Recent advances in screen-film mammography.
    Haus AG.
    Radiol Clin North Am; 1987 Sep; 25(5):913-28. PubMed ID: 3306773
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 10. Mammographic film-processor temperature, development time, and chemistry: effect on dose, contrast, and noise.
    Kimme-Smith C, Rothschild PA, Bassett LW, Gold RH, Moler C.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1989 Jan; 152(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 2783288
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

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

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

  • 14. [Reduction of radiation dosage in mammography by using film intensifying foil systems in Poland].
    Iwaszkiewicz K, Bończyk J.
    Pol Tyg Lek; 1989 Jan; 46(17-18):346-8. PubMed ID: 1669071
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. 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]

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

  • 17.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 19. Value of increasing film processing time to reduce radiation dose during mammography.
    Skubic SE, Yagan R, Oravec D, Shah Z.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1990 Dec; 155(6):1189-93. PubMed ID: 2122664
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Optimizing techniques in screen-film mammography.
    Hendrick RE, Berns EA.
    Radiol Clin North Am; 2000 Jul; 38(4):701-18, viii. PubMed ID: 10943272
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 5.