193 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16177015)
1. Comparison of a digital flat-panel versus screen-film, photofluorography and storage-phosphor systems by detection of simulated lung adenocarcinoma lesions using hard copy images.
Ono K; Yoshitake T; Akahane K; Yamada Y; Maeda T; Kai M; Kusama T
Br J Radiol; 2005 Oct; 78(934):922-7. PubMed ID: 16177015
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Experimental evaluation of a portable indirect flat-panel detector for the pediatric chest: comparison with storage phosphor radiography at different exposures by using a chest phantom.
Rapp-Bernhardt U; Bernhardt TM; Lenzen H; Esseling R; Roehl FW; Schiborr M; Theobald-Hormann I; Heindel W
Radiology; 2005 Nov; 237(2):485-91. PubMed ID: 16170012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Detection of simulated chest lesions by using soft-copy reading: comparison of an amorphous silicon flat-panel-detector system and a storage-phosphor system.
Goo JM; Im JG; Lee HJ; Chung MJ; Seo JB; Kim HY; Lee YJ; Kang JW; Kim JH
Radiology; 2002 Jul; 224(1):242-6. PubMed ID: 12091690
[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. Performance of a flat-panel detector in detecting artificial bone lesions: comparison with conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography.
Ludwig K; Lenzen H; Kamm KF; Link TM; Diederich S; Wormanns D; Heindel W
Radiology; 2002 Feb; 222(2):453-9. PubMed ID: 11818613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Digital radiography versus conventional radiography in chest imaging: diagnostic performance of a large-area silicon flat-panel detector in a clinical CT-controlled study.
Garmer M; Hennigs SP; Jäger HJ; Schrick F; van de Loo T; Jacobs A; Hanusch A; Christmann A; Mathias K
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Jan; 174(1):75-80. PubMed ID: 10628458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Detection of subtle undisplaced rib fractures in a porcine model: radiation dose requirement--digital flat-panel versus screen-film and storage-phosphor systems.
Ludwig K; Schülke C; Diederich S; Wormanns D; Lenzen H; Bernhardt TM; Brinckmann P; Heindel W
Radiology; 2003 Apr; 227(1):163-8. PubMed ID: 12615999
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Lumbar spine radiography: digital flat-panel detector versus screen-film and storage-phosphor systems in monkeys as a pediatric model.
Ludwig K; Ahlers K; Wormanns D; Freund M; Bernhardt TM; Diederich S; Heindel W
Radiology; 2003 Oct; 229(1):140-4. PubMed ID: 12925714
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Selenium radiography versus storage phosphor and conventional radiography in the detection of simulated chest lesions.
Schaefer-Prokop CM; Prokop M; Schmidt A; Neitzel U; Galanski M
Radiology; 1996 Oct; 201(1):45-50. PubMed ID: 8816519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Digital chest radiography with a solid-state flat-panel x-ray detector: contrast-detail evaluation with processed images printed on film hard copy.
Chotas HG; Ravin CE
Radiology; 2001 Mar; 218(3):679-82. PubMed ID: 11230639
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of eight different digital chest radiography systems: variation in detection of simulated chest disease.
Kroft LJ; Veldkamp WJ; Mertens BJ; Boot MV; Geleijns J
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Aug; 185(2):339-46. PubMed ID: 16037503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Flat-panel x-ray detector based on amorphous silicon versus asymmetric screen-film system: phantom study of dose reduction and depiction of simulated findings.
Rapp-Bernhardt U; Roehl FW; Gibbs RC; Schmidl H; Krause UW; Bernhardt TM
Radiology; 2003 May; 227(2):484-92. PubMed ID: 12676965
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparing image quality of flat-panel chest radiography with storage phosphor radiography and film-screen radiography.
Ganten M; Radeleff B; Kampschulte A; Daniels MD; Kauffmann GW; Hansmann J
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2003 Jul; 181(1):171-6. PubMed ID: 12818852
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [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]
15. Detection of simulated chest lesions: comparison of a conventional screen-film combination, an asymmetric screen-film system, and storage phosphor radiography.
Leppert AG; Prokop M; Schaefer-Prokop CM; Galanski M
Radiology; 1995 Apr; 195(1):259-63. PubMed ID: 7892482
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Digital chest radiography with a selenium-based flat-panel detector versus a storage phosphor system: comparison of soft-copy images.
Goo JM; Im JG; Kim JH; Seo JB; Kim TS; Shine SJ; Lee W
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Oct; 175(4):1013-8. PubMed ID: 11000155
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Image quality and exposure dose in digital projection radiography].
Busch HP; Busch S; Decker C; Schilz C
Rofo; 2003 Jan; 175(1):32-7. PubMed ID: 12525978
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Performance of a flat-panel detector in the detection of artificial erosive changes: comparison with conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography.
Ludwig K; Henschel A; Bernhardt TM; Lenzen H; Wormanns D; Diederich S; Heindel W
Eur Radiol; 2003 Jun; 13(6):1316-23. PubMed ID: 12764648
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
