Search Results - "SINGER, PAUL S"

Comparison of 1.0-, 1.5-, and 2.0-Pitch Abdominal Helical Computed Tomography in Evaluation of Normal Structures and Pathologic Lesions by HOPPER, KENNETH D, KASALES, CLAUDIA J, MAHRAJ, RICKHESVAR P.M, STARR, MELANIE B, TENHAVE, THOMAS R, JOZEFIAK, JUDITH A, PATRONE, SABRINA V, SINGER, PAUL S

“…RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVESThe authors performed a comprehensive prospective clinical trial comparing 1.0-, 1.5-, and 2.0-pitch abdominal helical computed…”
Get full text

Utility of low mA 1.5 pitch helical versus conventional high mA abdominal ct by Hopper, Kenneth D, Keeton, Nancy C, Kasales, Claudia J, Mahraj, Rickhesvar, Van Slyke, Mark A, Patrone, Sabrina V, Singer, Paul S, Tenhave, Thomas R

“…The objective of this study was to evaluate the utility of a low mA 1.5 pitch helical versus conventional high mA conventional technique in abdominal computed…”
Get full text

Extended pitch thoracic helical ct 47 by Singer, Paul S, Hopper, Kenneth D, Jozefiak, Judith A, Patrone, Sabrina V, Kasales, Claudia J, Mahraj, Rickhesvar P.M, Tenhave, Thomas R, Tully, Danielle A

“…The objective of this study was to test whether extended 1.5 pitch helical computed tomography (CT) can be used for routine thoracic CT without a significant…”
Get full text