Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:644062rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1962945lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:644062lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0020709lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:644062lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0178602lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:644062lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0851346lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:issue2lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:dateCreated1978-6-12lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:abstractTextRadiation doses of modern 100mm fluorography and full-scale radiography were compared experimentally and applied to hysterosalpingography. It was determined that 100mm fluorography reduced the doses by 28-29% per exposure and 37-47% per examination compared with full-scale radiography performed with fast tungstate screens in identical conditions (70-80 kV, 400 mA). The dose during one minute of videofluoroscopy was equivalent to the doses produced by one exposure in full-scale filming and three to four exposures in 100mm filming. Although electronic magnification in 100mm fluorography increases the doses by two or threefold, these are still less than the doses in full-scale radiography.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:citationSubsetAIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:monthMaylld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:issn0033-8419lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:authorpubmed-author:SeppänenSSlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:authorpubmed-author:LehtinenEElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:authorpubmed-author:HolmaSSlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:volume127lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:pagination377-80lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:dateRevised2006-11-15lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:644062-H...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:644062-R...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:644062-P...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:644062-F...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:644062-H...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:644062-F...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:644062-R...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:644062-R...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:year1978lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:articleTitleRadiation dose in hysterosalpingography: modern 100mm fluorography vs. full-scale radiography.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:644062pubmed:publicationTypeComparative Studylld:pubmed