131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7972756)
1. Evaluation of the injured cervical spine: comparison of conventional and storage phosphor radiography with a hybrid cassette.
Wilson AJ; Mann FA; West OC; McEnery KW; Murphy WA
Radiology; 1994 Nov; 193(2):419-22. PubMed ID: 7972756
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Selenium-based digital radiography of the cervical spine: comparison with screen-film radiography for the depiction of anatomic details].
Ludwig K; Diederich S; Wormanns D; Link TM; Lenzen H; Heindel W
Rofo; 2002 Aug; 174(8):1028-32. PubMed ID: 12142983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Lumbar spine radiography: digital flat-panel detector versus screen-film and storage-phosphor systems in monkeys as a pediatric model.
Ludwig K; Ahlers K; Wormanns D; Freund M; Bernhardt TM; Diederich S; Heindel W
Radiology; 2003 Oct; 229(1):140-4. PubMed ID: 12925714
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Storage phosphor radiographs vs conventional films: interpreters' perceptions of diagnostic quality.
Fuhrman CR; Gur D; Good B; Rockette H; Cooperstein LA; Feist JH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1988 May; 150(5):1011-4. PubMed ID: 3258701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Quality of digital pre-implant tomography: comparison of film-screen images with storage phosphor images at normal and low dose.
Ekestubbe A; Gröndahl HG; Molander B
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2003 Sep; 32(5):322-6. PubMed ID: 14709608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Digital chest radiography with a selenium-based flat-panel detector versus a storage phosphor system: comparison of soft-copy images.
Goo JM; Im JG; Kim JH; Seo JB; Kim TS; Shine SJ; Lee W
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Oct; 175(4):1013-8. PubMed ID: 11000155
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Digital imaging with a photostimulable phosphor in the chest of newborns.
Cohen MD; Katz BP; Kalasinski LA; White SJ; Smith JA; Long B
Radiology; 1991 Dec; 181(3):829-32. PubMed ID: 1947105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Detection of CT-proved pulmonary nodules: comparison of selenium-based digital and conventional screen-film chest radiographs.
Woodard PK; Slone RM; Sagel SS; Fleishman MJ; Gutierrez FR; Reiker GG; Pilgram TK; Jost RG
Radiology; 1998 Dec; 209(3):705-9. PubMed ID: 9844662
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of soft-tissue foreign bodies: comparing conventional plain film radiography, computed radiography printed on film, and computed radiography displayed on a computer workstation.
Reiner B; Siegel E; McLaurin T; Pomerantz S; Allman R; Hebel JR; Fritz S; Protopapas Z
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1996 Jul; 167(1):141-4. PubMed ID: 8659358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Direct digital radiography versus storage phosphor radiography in the detection of wrist fractures.
Peer S; Neitzel U; Giacomuzzi SM; Pechlaner S; Künzel KH; Peer R; Gassner E; Steingruber I; Gaber O; Jaschke W
Clin Radiol; 2002 Apr; 57(4):258-62. PubMed ID: 12014869
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Computed radiography: photostimulable phosphor image plate technology.
Long BW
Radiol Technol; 1989; 61(2):107-11. PubMed ID: 2587727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of linear measurements made from storage phosphor and dental radiographs.
Conover GL; Hildebolt CF; Yokoyama-Crothers N
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1996 Nov; 25(5):268-73. PubMed ID: 9161181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Comparative study between mobile computed radiography and mobile flat-panel radiography for bedside chest radiography: impact of an antiscatter grid on the visibility of selected diagnostically relevant structures.
Lehnert T; Naguib NN; Wutzler S; Bauer RW; Kerl JM; Burkhard T; Schulz B; Larson MC; Ackermann H; Vogl TJ; Balzer JO
Invest Radiol; 2014 Jan; 49(1):1-6. PubMed ID: 24019019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Single-exposure conventional and computed radiography. The hybrid cassette revisited.
Wilson AJ; West OC
Invest Radiol; 1993 May; 28(5):409-12. PubMed ID: 8496033
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [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]
[Next] [New Search]
