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.
48 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 413423)
21. [Experimental study of intensifying screens used in diagnostic radiography (author's transl)]. de Moras Y; Lucas P; Fauduet A; Pelgas MF; Serrurot M; Bausmayer J J Radiol Electrol Med Nucl; 1978 Mar; 59(3):213-21. PubMed ID: 650634 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Interactive, mathematical, and sequential consultative methods in diagnosing renal masses on excretory urograms. Ferrell WR; Hillman BJ; Brewer ML; Amendola MA; Thornbury JR Invest Radiol; 1989 Jun; 24(6):456-62. PubMed ID: 2521127 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. The dependence of radiographic mottle on beam quality. Barnes GT AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1976 Nov; 127(5):819-24. PubMed ID: 973671 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Simplifying radiological examinations. The urogram as a model. Hillman B; Abrams HL; Hessel SJ; Herbert S; Benazzi RB; Gerson DE Lancet; 1979 May; 1(8125):1068-71. PubMed ID: 86785 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Reduction of radiation dose in radiologic examination of patients with scoliosis. Hellström G; Irstam L; Nachemson A Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1983; 8(1):28-30. PubMed ID: 6867854 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. An asymmetric screen pair for angiography. Moore WE; Cromwell LD Radiology; 1980 Sep; 136(3):787-8. PubMed ID: 7403563 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Excretory urography in current practice: evidence against overutilization. Doubilet P; McNeil BJ; Van Houten FX; Berenberg A; Ratnofsky S; Greenes RA; Anderson JW; Mellins HZ; Abrams HL Radiology; 1985 Mar; 154(3):607-11. PubMed ID: 3969460 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Film-screen sharpness in complex motion tomography. Wayrynen RE; Holland RS; Schwenker RP Invest Radiol; 1977; 12(2):195-8. PubMed ID: 852953 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Evaluation of a new x-ray film with reduced crossover. Rao GU; Fatouros PP Med Phys; 1979; 6(3):226-8. PubMed ID: 470848 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Letter: Evaluation of a new screen/film combination. Hay GA Br J Radiol; 1976 Mar; 49(579):294. PubMed ID: 1276615 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Comparison of the image quality of 105mm film with conventional film. Skucas J; Gorski JW Radiology; 1976 Feb; 118(2):433-7. PubMed ID: 1250980 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Improved abdominal compression band for excretory urography. Kendig TA J Urol; 1969 May; 101(5):773-4. PubMed ID: 5780611 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Effect of screen/film combinations on diagnostic certainty: Hi-Plus/RPL versus Lanex/Ortho G in excretory urography. Thornbury JR; Fryback DG; Patterson FE; Chiavarini RL AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1978 Jan; 130(1):83-7. PubMed ID: 413423 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. The application of fast screen-film systems to excretory urography. Stables DP; Rossi RP; Caruthers SB; Anderson N AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1977 Apr; 128(4):617-9. PubMed ID: 403791 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Image quality, diagnostic certainty, and accuracy: comparison of conventional and digital urograms. Fajardo LL; Hillman BJ Urol Radiol; 1988; 10(2):72-4. PubMed ID: 3188300 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]