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.
159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3406396)
1. Digital chest radiography: effect on diagnostic accuracy of hard copy, conventional video, and reversed gray scale video display formats. MacMahon H; Metz CE; Doi K; Kim T; Giger ML; Chan HP Radiology; 1988 Sep; 168(3):669-73. PubMed ID: 3406396 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of 2048-line digital display formats and conventional radiographs: an ROC study. Hayrapetian A; Aberle DR; Huang HK; Fiske R; Morioka C; Valentino D; Boechat MI AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1989 May; 152(5):1113-8. PubMed ID: 2705346 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Chest radiography: comparison of high-resolution digital displays with conventional and digital film. Cox GG; Cook LT; McMillan JH; Rosenthal SJ; Dwyer SJ Radiology; 1990 Sep; 176(3):771-6. PubMed ID: 2389035 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Diagnostic accuracy of fracture detection in suspected non-accidental injury: the effect of edge enhancement and digital display on observer performance. Offiah AC; Moon L; Hall CM; Todd-Pokropek A Clin Radiol; 2006 Feb; 61(2):163-73. PubMed ID: 16439222 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Impact of hard-copy size on observer performance in digital chest radiography. Schaefer CM; Prokop M; Oestmann JW; Wiesmann W; Haubitz B; Meschede A; Reichelt S; Schirg E; Stender HS; Galanski M Radiology; 1992 Jul; 184(1):77-81. PubMed ID: 1609106 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Factors determining the diagnostic accuracy of digitized conventional intraoral radiographs. Ohki M; Okano T; Nakamura T Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1994 May; 23(2):77-82. PubMed ID: 7835507 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Interpretation accuracy of a CCD film digitizer. Gitlin JN; Scott WW; Bell K; Narayan A J Digit Imaging; 2002; 15 Suppl 1(2):57-63. PubMed ID: 12105698 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Digital and conventional chest images: observer performance with Film Digital Radiography System. Goodman LR; Foley WD; Wilson CR; Rimm AA; Lawson TL Radiology; 1986 Jan; 158(1):27-33. PubMed ID: 3940392 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Effect of monitor luminance and ambient light on observer performance in soft-copy reading of digital chest radiographs. Goo JM; Choi JY; Im JG; Lee HJ; Chung MJ; Han D; Park SH; Kim JH; Nam SH Radiology; 2004 Sep; 232(3):762-6. PubMed ID: 15273338 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Reporting requirements for skeletal digital radiography: comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy presentation. O'Connor PJ; Davies AG; Fowler RC; Lintott DJ; Bury RF; Parkin GJ; Martinez D; Saifuddin A; Cowen AR Radiology; 1998 Apr; 207(1):249-54. PubMed ID: 9530323 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. The effect of cathode ray tube display format on observer performance in dental digitized radiography: comparison with plain films. Møystad A; Svanaes DB; Larheim TA; Gröndahl HG Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1994 Nov; 23(4):206-10. PubMed ID: 7835525 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]