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.
403 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12649645)
1. Amorphous silicon, flat-panel, x-ray detector versus storage phosphor-based computed radiography: contrast-detail phantom study at different tube voltages and detector entrance doses. Hamer OW; Völk M; Zorger Z; Feuerbach S; Strotzer M Invest Radiol; 2003 Apr; 38(4):212-20. PubMed ID: 12649645 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of low-contrast detail perception on storage phosphor radiographs and digital flat panel detector images. Peer S; Neitzel U; Giacomuzzi SM; Peer R; Gassner E; Steingruber I; Jaschke W IEEE Trans Med Imaging; 2001 Mar; 20(3):239-42. PubMed ID: 11341713 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Contrast-detail phantom study for x-ray spectrum optimization regarding chest radiography using a cesium iodide-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector. Hamer OW; Völk M; Zorger N; Borisch I; Büttner R; Feuerbach S; Strotzer M Invest Radiol; 2004 Oct; 39(10):610-8. PubMed ID: 15377940 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography. Bacher K; Smeets P; Bonnarens K; De Hauwere A; Verstraete K; Thierens H AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2003 Oct; 181(4):923-9. PubMed ID: 14500203 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Chest radiography with a flat-panel detector: image quality with dose reduction after copper filtration. Hamer OW; Sirlin CB; Strotzer M; Borisch I; Zorger N; Feuerbach S; Völk M Radiology; 2005 Nov; 237(2):691-700. PubMed ID: 16192324 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Dual-energy cardiac imaging: an image quality and dose comparison for a flat-panel detector and x-ray image intensifier. Ducote JL; Xu T; Molloi S Phys Med Biol; 2007 Jan; 52(1):183-96. PubMed ID: 17183135 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Simulated bone erosions in a hand phantom: detection with conventional screen-film technology versus cesium iodide-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector. Strotzer M; Völk M; Wild T; von Landenberg P; Feuerbach S Radiology; 2000 May; 215(2):512-5. PubMed ID: 10796933 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Analysis of image quality in digital chest imaging. De Hauwere A; Bacher K; Smeets P; Verstraete K; Thierens H Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):174-7. PubMed ID: 16461499 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Flat Panel Detector Philips introduced and its system direction]. Yamada S Igaku Butsuri; 2002; 22(4):227-31. PubMed ID: 12766268 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [Direct digital magnification mammography with a large-surface detector made of amorphous silicon]. Hermann KP; Hundertmark C; Funke M; von Brenndorff A; Grabbe E Rofo; 1999 May; 170(5):503-6. PubMed ID: 10370416 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Chest radiography: ROC phantom study of four different digital systems and one conventional radiographic system]. Redlich U; Reissberg S; Hoeschen C; Effenberger O; Fessel A; Preuss H; Scherlach C; Döhring W Rofo; 2003 Jan; 175(1):38-45. PubMed ID: 12525979 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Routine chest radiography using a flat-panel detector: image quality at standard detector dose and 33% dose reduction. Strotzer M; Völk M; Fründ R; Hamer O; Zorger N; Feuerbach S AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Jan; 178(1):169-71. PubMed ID: 11756114 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Diagnostic performance of a flat-panel detector at low tube voltage in chest radiography: a phantom study. Bernhardt TM; Rapp-Bernhardt U; Lenzen H; Röhl FW; Diederich S; Papke K; Ludwig K; Heindel W Invest Radiol; 2004 Feb; 39(2):97-103. PubMed ID: 14734924 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. An investigation of flat panel equipment variables on image quality with a dedicated cardiac phantom. Dragusin O; Bosmans H; Pappas C; Desmet W Phys Med Biol; 2008 Sep; 53(18):4927-40. PubMed ID: 18711249 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Depiction of low-contrast detail in digital radiography: comparison of powder- and needle-structured storage phosphor systems. Körner M; Treitl M; Schaetzing R; Pfeifer KJ; Reiser M; Wirth S Invest Radiol; 2006 Jul; 41(7):593-9. PubMed ID: 16772853 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Skeletal applications for flat-panel versus storage-phosphor radiography: effect of exposure on detection of low-contrast details. Uffmann M; Schaefer-Prokop C; Neitzel U; Weber M; Herold CJ; Prokop M Radiology; 2004 May; 231(2):506-14. PubMed ID: 15128995 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Imaging characteristics evaluation of a digital radiography system. Moro L; Pannella A; Bassetti C; Fantinato D; Baldi M; Bertoli G Radiol Med; 2003; 106(1-2):94-102. PubMed ID: 12951556 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Image quality vs. radiation dose for a flat-panel amorphous silicon detector: a phantom study. Geijer H; Beckman KW; Andersson T; Persliden J Eur Radiol; 2001; 11(9):1704-9. PubMed ID: 11511892 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]