339 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3940392)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Selenium-based digital radiography of the chest: radiologists' preference compared with film-screen radiographs.
Floyd CE; Baker JA; Chotas HG; Delong DM; Ravin CE
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Dec; 165(6):1353-8. PubMed ID: 7484562
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of digital with film radiographs for the classification of pneumoconiotic pleural abnormalities.
Larson TC; Holiday DB; Antao VC; Thomas J; Pinheiro G; Kapil V; Franzblau A
Acad Radiol; 2012 Feb; 19(2):131-40. PubMed ID: 22098943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Chest imaging with a selenium detector versus conventional film radiography: a CT-controlled study.
van Heesewijk HP; van der Graaf Y; de Valois JC; Vos JA; Feldberg MA
Radiology; 1996 Sep; 200(3):687-90. PubMed ID: 8756915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Digital chest imaging with a selenium detector: comparison with conventional radiography for visualization of specific anatomic regions of the chest.
van Heesewijk HP; Neitzel U; van der Graaf Y; de Valois JC; Feldberg MA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Sep; 165(3):535-40. PubMed ID: 7645464
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Efficacy of digital radiography for the detection of pneumothorax: comparison with conventional chest radiography.
Elam EA; Rehm K; Hillman BJ; Maloney K; Fajardo LL; McNeill K
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1992 Mar; 158(3):509-14. PubMed ID: 1738985
[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. Portable chest radiography: comparison of high-resolution digital displays with laser printed digital film.
Wong SK; Polunin N; Tan KP
Ann Acad Med Singap; 1998 Mar; 27(2):178-81. PubMed ID: 9663305
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. A new asymmetric screen-film combination for conventional chest radiography: evaluation in 50 patients.
Swensen SJ; Gray JE; Brown LR; Aughenbaugh GL; Harms GF; Stears J
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1993 Mar; 160(3):483-6. PubMed ID: 8430540
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Chest radiography: depiction of normal anatomy and pathologic structures with selenium-based digital radiography versus conventional screen-film radiography.
Woodard PK; Slone RM; Gierada DS; Reiker GG; Pilgram TK; Jost RG
Radiology; 1997 Apr; 203(1):197-201. PubMed ID: 9122392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Conventional radiology, digital radiology with photostimulable phosphor, laser digitalization of thoracic radiographic films at the bedside. A comparative study].
Miceli M; Stamati R; Burci P; Guidarelli G; Sartoni Galloni S
Radiol Med; 1992 Oct; 84(4):455-8. PubMed ID: 1455031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Digital processing of film radiographs.
Sommer FG; Smathers RL; Wheat RL; Alvarez RE; Brody WR; Cassel DM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1985 Jan; 144(1):191-6. PubMed ID: 3880625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Nodular lesions simulated on an anthropomorphic thoracic phantom. A comparison between analog and digital images of the thorax].
Miceli M; Stamati R; Burci P; Sartoni Galloni S; Guidarelli G; Pastori R
Radiol Med; 1993; 85(1-2):54-8. PubMed ID: 8480049
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Digital selenium radiography: a comparison of the picture quality of thoracic images in normal and reduced image formats based on the structural anatomical details].
Zähringer M; Krug B; Kamm KF; Jung G; Dölken W; Wassmer G; Lackner K
Rofo; 1998 Jul; 169(1):33-7. PubMed ID: 9711280
[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]
