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

184 related items for PubMed ID: 21956367

  • 21.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 22. [Usefulness of curved coronal MPR imaging for the diagnosis of cervical radiculopathy].
    Inukai C, Inukai T, Matsuo N, Shimizu I, Goto H, Takagi T, Takayasu M.
    No Shinkei Geka; 2010 Mar; 38(3):251-7. PubMed ID: 20229770
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 23.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 24.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 25.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 26. T1-weighted imaging of the brain at 3 tesla using a 2-dimensional spoiled gradient echo technique.
    Runge VM, Patel MC, Baumann SS, Simonetta AB, Ponzo JA, Lesley WS, Calderwood GW, Naul LG.
    Invest Radiol; 2006 Feb; 41(2):68-75. PubMed ID: 16428975
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 27.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 28.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 29. Direct MR arthrography of the shoulder: 2D vs. 3D gradient-echo imaging.
    Wutke R, Fellner FA, Fellner C, Stangl R, Dobritz M, Bautz WA.
    Magn Reson Imaging; 2001 Nov; 19(9):1183-91. PubMed ID: 11755728
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 30.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 31. Quantification of cervical spine muscle fat: a comparison between T1-weighted and multi-echo gradient echo imaging using a variable projection algorithm (VARPRO).
    Elliott JM, Walton DM, Rademaker A, Parrish TB.
    BMC Med Imaging; 2013 Sep 11; 13():30. PubMed ID: 24020963
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 32. Differentiation between grade 3 and grade 4 articular cartilage defects of the knee: fat-suppressed proton density-weighted versus fat-suppressed three-dimensional gradient-echo MRI.
    Lee SY, Jee WH, Kim SK, Koh IJ, Kim JM.
    Acta Radiol; 2010 May 11; 51(4):455-61. PubMed ID: 20350249
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 33.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 34.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 35. Comparison of Brain Tumor Contrast-enhancement on T1-CUBE and 3D-SPGR Images.
    Majigsuren M, Abe T, Kageji T, Matsuzaki K, Takeuchi M, Iwamoto S, Otomi Y, Uyama N, Nagahiro S, Harada M.
    Magn Reson Med Sci; 2016 May 11; 15(1):34-40. PubMed ID: 26104076
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 36.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 37.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 38.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 39. Brain MR imaging at ultra-low radiofrequency power.
    Sarkar SN, Alsop DC, Madhuranthakam AJ, Busse RF, Robson PM, Rofsky NM, Hackney DB.
    Radiology; 2011 May 11; 259(2):550-7. PubMed ID: 21357520
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 40.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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