108 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1994411)
1. Primary CT diagnosis of abdominal masses in a PACS environment.
Straub WH; Gur D; Good WF; Campbell WL; Davis PL; Hecht ST; Skolnick ML; Thaete FL; Rosenthal MS; Sashin D
Radiology; 1991 Mar; 178(3):739-43. PubMed ID: 1994411
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Receiver operating characteristic analysis of chest image interpretation with conventional, laser-printed, and high-resolution workstation images.
Slasky BS; Gur D; Good WF; Costa-Greco MA; Harris KM; Cooperstein LA; Rockette HE
Radiology; 1990 Mar; 174(3 Pt 1):775-80. PubMed ID: 2305061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Radiologists' productivity in the interpretation of CT scans: a comparison of PACS with conventional film.
Reiner BI; Siegel EL; Hooper FJ; Pomerantz S; Dahlke A; Rallis D
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2001 Apr; 176(4):861-4. PubMed ID: 11264065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Computed tomography interpretations with a low-cost workstation: a timing study.
Beard DV; Hemminger BM; Pisano ED; Denelsbeck KM; Warshauer DM; Mauro MA; Keefe B; McCartney WH; Wilcox CB
J Digit Imaging; 1994 Aug; 7(3):133-9. PubMed ID: 7948172
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Display of CT studies on a two-screen electronic workstation versus a film panel alternator: sensitivity and efficiency among radiologists.
Foley WD; Jacobson DR; Taylor AJ; Goodman LR; Stewart ET; Gurney JW; Stroka D
Radiology; 1990 Mar; 174(3 Pt 1):769-73. PubMed ID: 2305060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. The use of continuous and discrete confidence judgments in receiver operating characteristic studies of diagnostic imaging techniques.
Rockette HE; Gur D; Metz CE
Invest Radiol; 1992 Feb; 27(2):169-72. PubMed ID: 1601610
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The effect of image display size on observer performance an assessment of variance components.
Gur D; Klym AH; King JL; Maitz GS; Mello-Thoms C; Rockette HE; Thaete FL
Acad Radiol; 2006 Apr; 13(4):409-13. PubMed ID: 16554219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Effect of film-based versus filmless operation on the productivity of CT technologists.
Reiner BI; Siegel EL; Hooper FJ; Glasser D
Radiology; 1998 May; 207(2):481-5. PubMed ID: 9577498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of a digital workstation for interpreting neonatal examinations. A receiver operating characteristic study.
Franken EA; Berbaum KS; Marley SM; Smith WL; Sato Y; Kao SC; Milam SG
Invest Radiol; 1992 Sep; 27(9):732-7. PubMed ID: 1399457
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Do picture archiving and communication systems improve report turnaround times?
Mehta A; Dreyer K; Boland G; Frank M
J Digit Imaging; 2000 May; 13(2 Suppl 1):105-7. PubMed ID: 10847375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Influence of film and monitor display luminance on observer performance and visual search.
Krupinski E; Roehrig H; Furukawa T
Acad Radiol; 1999 Jul; 6(7):411-8. PubMed ID: 10410166
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Personal computer versus workstation display: observer performance in detection of wrist fractures on digital radiographs.
Doyle AJ; Le Fevre J; Anderson GD
Radiology; 2005 Dec; 237(3):872-7. PubMed ID: 16237135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Quality assurance for abdominal CT: a rapid, computer-assisted technique.
Pomerantz SM; Daly B; Krebs TL; NessAiver M; Kepes SY; Wong JJ; Severson M; Siegler C
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1996 Nov; 167(5):1141-5. PubMed ID: 8911167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Sequential viewing of abdominal CT images at varying rates.
Gur D; Good WF; Oliver JH; Thaete FL; Baron RL; Federle MP; Campbell WL; Rosenthal MS
Radiology; 1994 Apr; 191(1):119-22. PubMed ID: 8134556
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
