128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12927664)
1. A comparison of conventional film, CR hard copy and PACS soft copy images of the chest: analyses of ROC curves and inter-observer agreement.
Weatherburn GC; Ridout D; Strickland NH; Robins P; Glastonbury CM; Curati W; Harvey C; Shadbolt C
Eur J Radiol; 2003 Sep; 47(3):206-14. PubMed ID: 12927664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Receiver-operating-characteristic study of chest radiographs in children: digital hard-copy film vs 2K x 2K soft-copy images.
Razavi M; Sayre JW; Taira RK; Simons M; Huang HK; Chuang KS; Rahbar G; Kangarloo H
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1992 Feb; 158(2):443-8. PubMed ID: 1729805
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A comparison of conventional screen-film radiography and hard copy of computed radiography in full and two-thirds sizes in detection of interstitial lung disease.
Kondoh H; Ikezoe J; Inamura K; Kuroda C; Kozuka T
J Digit Imaging; 1994 Nov; 7(4):193-5. PubMed ID: 7858016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of film, hard copy computed radiography (CR) and soft copy picture archiving and communication (PACS) systems using a contrast detail test object.
Weatherburn GC; Davies JG
Br J Radiol; 1999 Sep; 72(861):856-63. PubMed ID: 10645191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Subtle pulmonary disease: detection with computed radiography versus conventional chest radiography.
Ishigaki T; Endo T; Ikeda M; Kono M; Yoshida S; Ikezoe J; Murata K; Matsumoto M
Radiology; 1996 Oct; 201(1):51-60. PubMed ID: 8816520
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Accuracy of bedside chest hard-copy screen-film versus hard- and soft-copy computed radiographs in a medical intensive care unit: receiver operating characteristic analysis.
Kundel HL; Gefter W; Aronchick J; Miller W; Hatabu H; Whitfill CH; Miller W
Radiology; 1997 Dec; 205(3):859-63. PubMed ID: 9393548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [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]
8. Effects of reduced exposure on computed radiography: comparison of nodule detection accuracy with conventional and asymmetric screen-film radiographs of a chest phantom.
Kimme-Smith C; Aberle DR; Sayre JW; Hart EM; Greaves SM; Brown K; Young DA; Deseran MD; Johnson T; Johnson SL
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Aug; 165(2):269-73. PubMed ID: 7618538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of hard- and soft-copy digital chest images with different matrix sizes for managing coronary care unit patients.
Steckel RJ; Batra P; Johnson S; Sayre J; Brown K; Haker K; Young D; Zucker M
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Apr; 164(4):837-41. PubMed ID: 7726034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Computed radiography in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units: a comparison of 2.5 K x 2 K soft-copy images vs digital hard-copy film.
Brill PW; Winchester P; Cahill P; Lesser M; Durfee SM; Giess CS; Auld PA; Greenwald B
Pediatr Radiol; 1996; 26(5):333-6. PubMed ID: 8657462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Digital slot-scan charge-coupled device radiography versus AMBER and Bucky screen-film radiography: comparison of image quality in a phantom study.
Veldkamp WJ; Kroft LJ; Mertens BJ; Geleijns J
Radiology; 2005 Jun; 235(3):857-66. PubMed ID: 15845787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Urinary calculi on computed radiography: comparison of observer performance with hard-copy versus soft-copy images on different viewer systems.
Kim AY; Cho KS; Song KS; Kim JH; Kim JG; Ha HK
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2001 Aug; 177(2):331-5. PubMed ID: 11461856
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Radiology report times: impact of picture archiving and communication systems.
Bryan S; Weatherburn G; Watkins J; Roddie M; Keen J; Muris N; Buxton MJ
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 May; 170(5):1153-9. PubMed ID: 9574575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A comparison of image reject rates when using film, hard copy computed radiography and soft copy images on picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) workstations.
Weatherburn GC; Bryan S; West M
Br J Radiol; 1999 Jul; 72(859):653-60. PubMed ID: 10624322
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparing film and digital radiographs for reliability of pneumoconiosis classifications: a modeling approach.
Sen A; Lee SY; Gillespie BW; Kazerooni EA; Goodsitt MM; Rosenman KD; Lockey JE; Meyer CA; Petsonk EL; Wang ML; Franzblau A
Acad Radiol; 2010 Apr; 17(4):511-9. PubMed ID: 20207319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Digital storage phosphor chest radiography: an ROC study of the effect of 2K versus 4K matrix size on observer performance.
Miró SP; Leung AN; Rubin GD; Choi YH; Kee ST; Mindelzun RE; Stark P; Wexler L; Plevritis SK; Betts BJ
Radiology; 2001 Feb; 218(2):527-32. PubMed ID: 11161174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Metastases of colorectal carcinoma: comparison of soft- and hard-copy helical CT interpretation.
Pijl ME; Wasser MN; Joekes EC; van de Velde CJ; Bloem JL
Radiology; 2003 Jun; 227(3):747-51. PubMed ID: 12702822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Direct comparison of conventional and computed radiography with a dual-image recording technique.
MacMahon H; Sanada S; Doi K; Giger M; Xu XW; Yin FF; Montner SM; Carlin M
Radiographics; 1991 Mar; 11(2):259-68. PubMed ID: 2028063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Accuracy of interpretation of CT scans: comparing PACS monitor displays and hard-copy images.
Reiner BI; Siegel EL; Hooper FJ
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Dec; 179(6):1407-10. PubMed ID: 12438025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Hard-copy versus soft-copy image reading for detection of ureteral stones on abdominal radiography.
Ueda K; Iwasaki S; Nagasawa M; Sueyoshi S; Takahama J; Ide K; Kichikawa K
Radiat Med; 2003; 21(5):210-3. PubMed ID: 14632296
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
