59 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11402875)
1. [Time needs in evaluating digital thoracic images on the monitor in comparison with alternator].
Herrmann KA; Bonél HM; Stäbler A; Matzko M; Waggershauser T; Sittek H; Reiser MF
Rontgenpraxis; 2001; 53(6):260-5. PubMed ID: 11402875
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [A comparison of the monitor and alternator findings of digital thoracic images with the aid of a computer-supported procedure].
Heckermann D; Fink U; Schätzl M; Fink B; Kenn W; Miller P; Pistitsch C; Herrmann K; Reiser M
Rofo; 1998 Jul; 169(1):38-44. PubMed ID: 9711281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Soft-copy reading in digital mammography of mass: diagnostic performance of a 5-megapixel cathode ray tube monitor versus a 3-megapixel liquid crystal display monitor in a diagnostic setting.
Uematsu T; Kasami M
Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):623-9. PubMed ID: 18568553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Comparison of four digital and one conventional radiographic image systems for the chest in a patient study with subsequent system optimization].
Redlich U; Hoeschen C; Effenberger O; Fessel A; Preuss H; Reissberg S; Scherlach C; Döhring W
Rofo; 2005 Feb; 177(2):272-8. PubMed ID: 15666237
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Visibility of normal thoracic anatomic landmarks on storage phosphor digital radiography versus conventional radiography.
Konen E; Greenberg I; Rozenman J
Isr Med Assoc J; 2005 Aug; 7(8):495-7. PubMed ID: 16106773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Enhanced visualization processing: effect on workflow.
Krupinski EA; Radvany M; Levy A; Ballenger D; Tucker J; Chacko A; VanMetter R
Acad Radiol; 2001 Nov; 8(11):1127-33. PubMed ID: 11721812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Physical image quality comparison of four types of digital detector for chest radiology.
Fernandez JM; Ordiales JM; Guibelalde E; Prieto C; Vano E
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):140-3. PubMed ID: 18283060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Optimisation of image plate radiography with respect to tube voltage.
Tingberg A; Sjöström D
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):286-93. PubMed ID: 15933123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Radiation exposure of children in pediatric radiology. Part 4: Entrance doses achieved during the X-ray examination of the chest].
Seidenbusch MC; Schneider K
Rofo; 2008 Dec; 180(12):1082-103. PubMed ID: 19009497
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Assessment and optimisation of the image quality of chest-radiography systems.
Redlich U; Hoeschen C; Doehring W
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):264-8. PubMed ID: 15933119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Chest radiography: a comparison of image quality and effective dose using four digital systems.
Pascoal A; Lawinski CP; Mackenzie A; Tabakov S; Lewis CA
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):273-7. PubMed ID: 15933121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Coronal reformations of the chest on 64-row multi-detector row CT: evaluation of image quality in comparison with 16-, 8- and 4-row multi-detector row CT.
Nishino M; Kubo T; Kataoka ML; Raptopoulos V; Hatabu H
Eur J Radiol; 2006 Aug; 59(2):231-7. PubMed ID: 16567075
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Initial clinical results with a new needle screen storage phosphor system in chest radiograms.
Körner M; Wirth S; Treitl M; Reiser M; Pfeifer KJ
Rofo; 2005 Nov; 177(11):1491-6. PubMed ID: 16302129
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Interpretation time of serial chest CT examinations with stacked-metaphor workstation versus film alternator.
Beard DV; Molina PL; Muller KE; Denelsbeck KM; Hemminger BM; Perry JR; Braeuning MP; Glueck DH; Bidgood WD; Mauro M
Radiology; 1995 Dec; 197(3):753-8. PubMed ID: 7480751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The evolution of digital radiography: from storage phosphors to flat-panel detectors.
Porcelli A; Maggi F; Spalvieri S; Meduri A; Marano P
Rays; 2003; 28(1):5-12. PubMed ID: 14509175
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of technical and anatomical noise in digital thorax X-ray images.
Hoeschen C; Tischenko O; Buhr E; Illers H
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):75-80. PubMed ID: 15933084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Patient doses and image quality in digital chest radiology.
Salát D; Nikodemová D
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):147-9. PubMed ID: 18321878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Digital radiographic image presentation -- automatic or semiautomatic processing?].
Rofo; 2005 Jan; 177(1):13. PubMed ID: 15657846
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Interpretation of CT studies: single-screen workstation versus film alternator.
Beard DV; Hemminger BM; Perry JR; Mauro MA; Muller KE; Warshauer DM; Smith MA; Zito AJ
Radiology; 1993 May; 187(2):565-9. PubMed ID: 8475309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Quantitative assessment of the influence of anatomic noise on the detection of subtle lung nodule in digital chest radiography using fractal-feature distance.
Imai K; Ikeda M; Enchi Y; Niimi T
Eur J Radiol; 2008 Nov; 68(2):353-7. PubMed ID: 17920222
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
