127 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2399307)
1. Storage phosphor versus screen-film radiography: effect of varying exposure parameters and unsharp mask filtering on the detectability of cortical bone defects.
Prokop M; Galanski M; Oestmann JW; von Falkenhausen U; Rosenthal H; Reimer P; Nischelsky J; Reichelt S
Radiology; 1990 Oct; 177(1):109-13. PubMed ID: 2399307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [The value of digital imaging techniques in skeletal imaging].
Lehmann KJ; Busch HP; Sommer A; Georgi M
Rofo; 1991 Mar; 154(3):286-91. PubMed ID: 1849297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Improved parameters for unsharp mask filtering of digital chest radiographs.
Prokop M; Schaefer CM; Oestmann JW; Galanski M
Radiology; 1993 May; 187(2):521-6. PubMed ID: 8475301
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Amorphous silicon, flat-panel, x-ray detector versus screen-film radiography: effect of dose reduction on the detectability of cortical bone defects and fractures.
Strotzer M; Gmeinwieser J; Spahn M; Völk M; Fründ R; Seitz J; Spies V; Alexander J; Feuerbach S
Invest Radiol; 1998 Jan; 33(1):33-8. PubMed ID: 9438507
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Conventional film-screen versus computed storage phosphor radiography. Simulated miliary lung disease in an anthropomorphic phantom.
Mosser H; Pärtan G; Urban M; Krampla W; Ottes F; Hruby W
Invest Radiol; 1995 Mar; 30(3):186-91. PubMed ID: 7797418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Interstitial lung diseases. A comparative study between a film-screen combination and a digital storage phosphor technic].
Dölken W; Chowanetz W; Horwitz AE; Krahe T; Landwehr P; Lackner K
Rofo; 1992 Jan; 156(1):61-7. PubMed ID: 1733476
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Digital mammography. ROC studies of the effects of pixel size and unsharp-mask filtering on the detection of subtle microcalcifications.
Chan HP; Vyborny CJ; MacMahon H; Metz CE; Doi K; Sickles EA
Invest Radiol; 1987 Jul; 22(7):581-9. PubMed ID: 3623862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. ROC-analysis of detection performance by analogue and digital plain film systems in chest radiography.
Müller RD; Wähling S; Hirche H; Voss M; Blendl C; Gocke C; Gocke P; Buddenbrock B; John V; Wiebringhaus R; Turowski B
Acta Radiol; 1996 Nov; 37(6):847-54. PubMed ID: 8995453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Interstitial lung disease: impact of postprocessing in digital storage phosphor imaging.
Schaefer CM; Greene R; Llewellyn HJ; Mrose HE; Pile-Spellman EA; Rubens JR; Lindemann SR
Radiology; 1991 Mar; 178(3):733-8. PubMed ID: 1994410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Unsharp masking of low-dosed digital luminescence radiographs: results of a receiver operating characteristics analysis.
Müller RD; Voss M; Hirche H; Buddenbrock B; John V; Bosch E
Eur Radiol; 1996; 6(4):526-31. PubMed ID: 8798037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Interpretation of subtle interstitial chest abnormalities: conventional radiography versus high-resolution storage-phosphor radiography--a preliminary study.
Ikezoe J; Kohno N; Kido S; Takeuchi N; Johkoh T; Arisawa J; Kozuka T
J Digit Imaging; 1995 Feb; 8(1 Suppl 1):31-6. PubMed ID: 7734537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [Thoracic radiographs with the AMBER system. A comparison of the diagnostic image quality of film-screen and storage-phosphor radiographs on the grid-partition stand and the AMBER system].
Busch HP; Hartmann J; Freund MC; Lehmann KJ; Georgi M; Richter K
Rofo; 1992 Mar; 156(3):241-6. PubMed ID: 1550921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Detection of small bone lesions with digital radiography using storage phosphors].
Salvini E; Zincone G; Fossati N; Crivellaro M; Crespi A; Loda A; Paruccini N; Pastori R
Radiol Med; 1991 May; 81(5):705-8. PubMed ID: 2057602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparative evaluation of digital radiography versus conventional radiography of fractured skulls.
Langen HJ; Klein HM; Wein B; Stargardt A; Günther RW
Invest Radiol; 1993 Aug; 28(8):686-9. PubMed ID: 8376000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Fracture diagnosis with digital luminescence radiography].
Klein HM; Wein B; Langen HJ; Glaser KH; Stargardt A; Günther RW
Rofo; 1991 Jun; 154(6):582-6. PubMed ID: 1648759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of imaging properties of a computed radiography system and screen-film systems.
Sanada S; Doi K; Xu XW; Yin FF; Giger ML; MacMahon H
Med Phys; 1991; 18(3):414-20. PubMed ID: 1870484
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Detection of subtle microcalcifications: comparison of computed radiography and screen-film mammography.
Higashida Y; Moribe N; Morita K; Katsuda N; Hatemura M; Takada T; Takahashi M; Yamashita J
Radiology; 1992 May; 183(2):483-6. PubMed ID: 1561354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Phantom study of chest radiography with storage phosphor, selenium, and film-screen systems.
Kehler M; Lyttkens K; Andersson B; Hochbergs P; Lindberg CG; Medin J; Nordström AJ; Sanfridsson J; Vojciechowski J
Acta Radiol; 1996 May; 37(3 Pt 1):332-6. PubMed ID: 8845264
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
