98 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6618826)
1. Comparison of two detail screen-film systems using a rheumatoid erosion model.
De Smet AA; Goin JE; Arnett GR; Chang CH; Martin NL; Rosenthal SJ
Invest Radiol; 1983; 18(4):359-63. PubMed ID: 6618826
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Performance of a flat-panel detector in the detection of artificial erosive changes: comparison with conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography.
Ludwig K; Henschel A; Bernhardt TM; Lenzen H; Wormanns D; Diederich S; Heindel W
Eur Radiol; 2003 Jun; 13(6):1316-23. PubMed ID: 12764648
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Film-screen vs. digital radiography in rheumatoid arthritis of the hand. An ROC analysis.
Jónsson A; Borg A; Hannesson P; Herrlin K; Jonsson K; Sloth M; Petterson H
Acta Radiol; 1994 Jul; 35(4):311-8. PubMed ID: 8011377
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Optimization of chest films of equalization radiography (advanced multiple beam equalization radiography). Comparison by means of a receiver operating characteristic study of simulated nodular interstitial disease.
Schultz Kool LJ; van Proosdij M; van Metter R; Vrooman HA; Aarts NJ; Shaw PM; Obermann WR; Heijboer RJ; Memel DS; Oestmann JW
Invest Radiol; 1994 Dec; 29(12):1020-5. PubMed ID: 7721542
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Simulated bone erosions in a hand phantom: detection with conventional screen-film technology versus cesium iodide-amorphous silicon flat-panel detector.
Strotzer M; Völk M; Wild T; von Landenberg P; Feuerbach S
Radiology; 2000 May; 215(2):512-5. PubMed ID: 10796933
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Can we see enough? A comparative study of film-screen vs digital radiographs in small lesions in rheumatoid arthritis.
van der Jagt EJ; Hofman S; Kraft BM; van Leeuwen MA
Eur Radiol; 2000; 10(2):304-7. PubMed ID: 10663761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A radiographic model for simulating rheumatoid erosions.
De Smet AA; Goin JE; Martin R
Invest Radiol; 1983; 18(4):352-8. PubMed ID: 6618825
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Threshold perception performance with computed and screen-film radiography: implications for chest radiography.
Dobbins JT; Rice JJ; Beam CA; Ravin CE
Radiology; 1992 Apr; 183(1):179-87. PubMed ID: 1549669
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Exposure factors and screen-film combinations in temporomandibular joint radiography.
Thorburn DN; Stockdill DA; Kenyon RP; Cowan I; Ferguson MM
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1991 May; 20(2):87-92. PubMed ID: 1936423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Advantages of a 400 speed image receptor system for cast radiography.
Gratale P; Burns CB; Murray J
Radiol Technol; 1987; 58(5):401-3. PubMed ID: 3588882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A comparison of two different T-grain films in rare-earth screens with a standard film-screen combination for intravenous pyelography and bone examinations.
Logan H; Daly L; Masterson J
Br J Radiol; 1989 Mar; 62(735):237-40. PubMed ID: 2702380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Sensitometric effects of varying the intensifying screens used with Agfa Dentus ST8G and RP6 panoramic radiographic films.
Wakoh M; Farman AG; Scarfe WC; Kitagawa H; Kuroyanagi K
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1997 Jul; 26(4):225-9. PubMed ID: 9442613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [Value of direct radiographic enlargement (DIMA) in early detection of rheumatic inflammatory lesions. Comparative evaluation with high resolution conventional imaging technique].
Link TM; Fiebich M; Gaubitz M; Krause F; Vestring T; Schneider M; Peters PE
Radiologe; 1994 Jul; 34(7):405-10. PubMed ID: 7938489
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Film-based chest radiography: AMBER vs asymmetric screen-film systems.
Chotas HG; Floyd CE; Ravin CE
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1993 Oct; 161(4):743-7. PubMed ID: 8372749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Kodak T-Mat G film in rotational panoramic radiography.
Ponce AZ; McDavid WD; Lundeen RC; Morris CR
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol; 1986 Jun; 61(6):649-52. PubMed ID: 3459998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Radiographic mottle and patient exposure in mammography.
Barnes GT; Chakraborty DP
Radiology; 1982 Dec; 145(3):815-21. PubMed ID: 7146416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Skeletal surveys for child abuse: comparison of interpretation using digitized images and screen-film radiographs.
Youmans DC; Don S; Hildebolt C; Shackelford GD; Luker GD; McAlister WH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Nov; 171(5):1415-9. PubMed ID: 9798889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Diagnostic efficacy of digitized images vs plain films: a study of the joints of the fingers.
Richmond BJ; Powers C; Piraino DW; Freed H; Meziane MA; Hale JC; Schluchter MD; Schils J; Gragg LA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1992 Feb; 158(2):437-41. PubMed ID: 1729804
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A comparative evaluation of rare-earth screen-film systems. System speed, contrast, sensitometry, RMS noise, square-wave response function, and contrast-dose-detail analysis.
Fearon T; Vucich J; Hoe J; McSweeney WJ; Potter BM
Invest Radiol; 1986 Aug; 21(8):654-62. PubMed ID: 3744739
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
