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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

95 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2334885)

  • 1. Readability of cervical spine imaging: digital versus film/screen radiographs.
    Kreipke DL; Silver DI; Tarver RD; Braunstein EM
    Comput Med Imaging Graph; 1990; 14(2):119-25. PubMed ID: 2334885
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [Selenium-based digital radiography of the cervical spine: comparison with screen-film radiography for the depiction of anatomic details].
    Ludwig K; Diederich S; Wormanns D; Link TM; Lenzen H; Heindel W
    Rofo; 2002 Aug; 174(8):1028-32. PubMed ID: 12142983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Football protective gear and cervical spine imaging.
    Davidson RM; Burton JH; Snowise M; Owens WB
    Ann Emerg Med; 2001 Jul; 38(1):26-30. PubMed ID: 11423808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Measurement of prevertebral cervical soft tissue thickness on lateral digital radiographs.
    Douglas TS; Gresak LK; Koen N; Fenton-Muir N; van As AB; Pitcher RD
    J Pediatr Orthop; 2012; 32(3):249-52. PubMed ID: 22411329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Evaluation of the injured cervical spine: comparison of conventional and storage phosphor radiography with a hybrid cassette.
    Wilson AJ; Mann FA; West OC; McEnery KW; Murphy WA
    Radiology; 1994 Nov; 193(2):419-22. PubMed ID: 7972756
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of observer variation in conventional and three digital radiographic methods used in the evaluation of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.
    Mok JM; Berven SH; Diab M; Hackbarth M; Hu SS; Deviren V
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 Mar; 33(6):681-6. PubMed ID: 18344863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Use of flexion and extension radiographs of the cervical spine to rule out acute instability in patients with negative computed tomography scans.
    Khan SN; Erickson G; Sena MJ; Gupta MC
    J Orthop Trauma; 2011 Jan; 25(1):51-6. PubMed ID: 21085024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Optimized image processing with modified preprocessing of image data sets of a transparent imaging plate by way of the lateral view of the cervical spine].
    Reissberg S; Hoeschen C; Redlich U; Scherlach C; Preuss H; Kästner A; Woischneck D; Schütze M; Reichardt K; Firsching R; Döhring W
    Rofo; 2002 Oct; 174(10):1296-300. PubMed ID: 12375206
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Digital radiographic measurement of the atlantodental interval in children.
    Douglas TS; Sanders V; Machers S; Pitcher R; van As AB
    J Pediatr Orthop; 2007; 27(1):23-6. PubMed ID: 17195792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Marginal bone levels measured in film and digital radiographs corrected for attenuation and visual response: an in vivo study.
    Li G; Engström PE; Nasström K; Lü ZY; Sanderink G; Welander U
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2007 Jan; 36(1):7-11. PubMed ID: 17329581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Quality of film-based and digital panoramic radiography.
    Molander B; Gröndahl HG; Ekestubbe A
    Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2004 Jan; 33(1):32-6. PubMed ID: 15140820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Inter- and intraobserver reliability assessment of the Cobb angle: manual versus digital measurement tools.
    Gstoettner M; Sekyra K; Walochnik N; Winter P; Wachter R; Bach CM
    Eur Spine J; 2007 Oct; 16(10):1587-92. PubMed ID: 17549526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms.
    Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D
    Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Computed tomographic scanning of cervical spine fractures: does it influence treatment?
    Katz MA; Beredjiklian PK; Vresilovic EJ; Tahernia AD; Gabriel JP; Chan PS; Heppenstall RB
    J Orthop Trauma; 1999; 13(5):338-43. PubMed ID: 10406700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The Swimmer's view: does it really show what it is supposed to show? A retrospective study.
    Rethnam U; Yesupalan RS; Bastawrous SS
    BMC Med Imaging; 2008 Jan; 8():2. PubMed ID: 18197973
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Evaluation of the Commission of the European Communities quality criteria for the paediatric lateral spine.
    Offiah AC; Hall CM
    Br J Radiol; 2003 Dec; 76(912):885-90. PubMed ID: 14711776
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Personal computer teleradiology: comparing image quality of lateral cervical spine radiographs with conventional teleradiology.
    Yamamoto LG; DiMauro R; Long DC
    Am J Emerg Med; 1993 Jul; 11(4):384-9. PubMed ID: 8216522
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Utility of flexion-extension radiographs in evaluating the degenerative cervical spine.
    White AP; Biswas D; Smart LR; Haims A; Grauer JN
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2007 Apr; 32(9):975-9. PubMed ID: 17450072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Clinical magnification error in lateral spinal digital radiographs.
    Ravi B; Rampersaud R
    Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2008 May; 33(10):E311-6. PubMed ID: 18449031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography.
    Kim HH; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Jiroutek MR; Muller KE; Zheng Y; Kuzmiak CM; Koomen MA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Jul; 187(1):47-50. PubMed ID: 16794154
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.