Comparative study of dose values and image quality in mammography in the Madrid area

British Journal of Radiology

Volumn 69, Issue 817, 1996, Pages 42-48

  Chevalier, M ^a   Moran P ^a   Vano E ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALUMINUM;

ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FILTRATION; IMAGE QUALITY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHANTOM; RADIATION DOSE; SPAIN;

HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIATION DOSAGE; SPAIN;

EID: 0030051323     PISSN: 00071285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1259/0007-1285-69-817-42     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. MORÁN P, CHEVALIER, M and VAÑÓ, E, Comparative study of dose values and image quality in mammography in the area of Madrid, Br. J. Radiol., 67, 556-563 (1994)
2. COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, European protocol for the quality control of the technical aspects of mammography screening. In European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Mammography Screening (CEC Report EUR 14821 EN), ed. by C J M de Wolf (CEC, Brussels) (1993).
3. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Guidelines on the Establishment of a Quality Assurance System for the Radiological Aspects of Mammography used for Breast Screening (DOH, London) (1989).
4. YOUNG, K C, RAMSDALE, M L and HORTON, P W, Review of Mammography Equipment and its Performance (NHSBSP Publication No 24) (NHSBSP, Nottingham) (1992).
5. COWEN, A R, WORKMAN, A, COLEMAN, N J ET AL, The development of an image quality control strategy for screening mammography. In Optimization of Image Quality and Patient Exposure in Diagnostic Radiology (BIR Report 20), ed. by B M Moores, B F Wall, H Eriskat and H Schibilla (BIR, London), pp. 35-37 (1989).
6. COWEN, A R and COLEMAN, N J, Design of test objects and phantoms for quality control in mammography. In Physics in Diagnostic Radiology (IPSM Report 61) (IPSM, York), pp. 30-36 (1990).
7. MORAN, P, CHEVALIER, M, CONTENTO, G and VAÑÓ, E, Evaluation of the sensitivity of the Leeds TOR(MAX) mammographic phantom, Radiat. Prot. Dosim., 49, 163-166 (1993).
8. KIRKPATRICK, A E and LAW, J, A comparative study of films and screens for mammography, Br. J. Radiol., 60, 73-78 (1987).
9. HENDRICK, E, Standardization of image quality and radiation dose in mammography, Radiology, 174, 648-654 (1990).
10. YOUNG, K C, RAMSDALE, M L and RUST, A, Survey of mammography image quality in the UK. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Data Analysis in Quality Control and Radiation Protection of the Patient in Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (Grado, Italy), p. 132 (1994).
11. COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Quality Criteria for Diagnostic Radiographic Images (2nd edn) (Working Document CEC, D.G. XII, ref. XII/73/90) (CEC, Brussels) (1990).
12. LAW, J, The influence of focal spot size on image resolution and test phantom scores in mammography, Br. J. Radiol., 66, 441-446 (1993).
13. KIMME-SMITH, C, BASSET, L W and GOLD, R H, Focal spot size measurements with pinhole and slit for microfocus mammography units, Med. Phys., 15, 298-303 (1988).
14. LAW, J, Measurement of focal spot size in mammography X-ray tubes, Br. J. Radiol., 66, 44-50 (1993).
15. FAULKNER, K, Forrest, Pritchard and IPSM59, In Book of Abstracts of the Mammography Physics Training Meeting (IPSM, York), pp. 1-3 (1994).