131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7972756)
21. Storage phosphor versus screen-film radiography: effect of varying exposure parameters and unsharp mask filtering on the detectability of cortical bone defects.
Prokop M; Galanski M; Oestmann JW; von Falkenhausen U; Rosenthal H; Reimer P; Nischelsky J; Reichelt S
Radiology; 1990 Oct; 177(1):109-13. PubMed ID: 2399307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Visibility of normal thoracic anatomic landmarks on storage phosphor digital radiography versus conventional radiography.
Konen E; Greenberg I; Rozenman J
Isr Med Assoc J; 2005 Aug; 7(8):495-7. PubMed ID: 16106773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Detection of pulmonary edema in pigs: storage phosphor versus amorphous selenium-based flat-panel-detector radiography.
Kim TS; Im JG; Goo JM; Lee KH; Lee YJ; Kim SH; Kim S
Radiology; 2002 Jun; 223(3):695-701. PubMed ID: 12034937
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. Improved imaging of bone with scan equalization radiography.
Wandtke JC; Plewes DB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1991 Aug; 157(2):359-64. PubMed ID: 1853822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Direct comparison of conventional and computed radiography with a dual-image recording technique.
MacMahon H; Sanada S; Doi K; Giger M; Xu XW; Yin FF; Montner SM; Carlin M
Radiographics; 1991 Mar; 11(2):259-68. PubMed ID: 2028063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Amorphous silicon, flat-panel, x-ray detector versus storage phosphor-based computed radiography: contrast-detail phantom study at different tube voltages and detector entrance doses.
Hamer OW; Völk M; Zorger Z; Feuerbach S; Strotzer M
Invest Radiol; 2003 Apr; 38(4):212-20. PubMed ID: 12649645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Portable chest imaging: comparison of storage phosphor digital, asymmetric screen-film, and conventional screen-film systems.
Niklason LT; Chan HP; Cascade PN; Chang CL; Chee PW; Mathews JF
Radiology; 1993 Feb; 186(2):387-93. PubMed ID: 8421740
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Dose reduction in patients undergoing chest imaging: digital amorphous silicon flat-panel detector radiography versus conventional film-screen radiography and phosphor-based computed radiography.
Bacher K; Smeets P; Bonnarens K; De Hauwere A; Verstraete K; Thierens H
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2003 Oct; 181(4):923-9. PubMed ID: 14500203
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. [Optimized image processing with modified preprocessing of image data sets of a transparent imaging plate by way of the lateral view of the cervical spine].
Reissberg S; Hoeschen C; Redlich U; Scherlach C; Preuss H; Kästner A; Woischneck D; Schütze M; Reichardt K; Firsching R; Döhring W
Rofo; 2002 Oct; 174(10):1296-300. PubMed ID: 12375206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. [Detection of small bone lesions with digital radiography using storage phosphors].
Salvini E; Zincone G; Fossati N; Crivellaro M; Crespi A; Loda A; Paruccini N; Pastori R
Radiol Med; 1991 May; 81(5):705-8. PubMed ID: 2057602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. A comparison of the response of storage phosphor and film radiography to small variations in X-ray exposure.
Hildebolt CF; Fletcher G; Yokoyama-Crothers N; Conover GL; Vannier MW
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 1997 May; 26(3):147-51. PubMed ID: 9442600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Digital storage phosphor radiography for treatment verification in radiotherapy.
Scheck RJ; Wendt T; Panzer M
Br J Radiol; 1993 Sep; 66(789):801-6. PubMed ID: 8220952
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. [Digital thoracic radiography--a comparison of digital and analog imaging techniques].
Busch HP
Bildgebung; 1991; 58 Suppl 1():9-12. PubMed ID: 1799858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. [The value of digital imaging techniques in skeletal imaging].
Lehmann KJ; Busch HP; Sommer A; Georgi M
Rofo; 1991 Mar; 154(3):286-91. PubMed ID: 1849297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Comparison of a digital flat-panel versus screen-film, photofluorography and storage-phosphor systems by detection of simulated lung adenocarcinoma lesions using hard copy images.
Ono K; Yoshitake T; Akahane K; Yamada Y; Maeda T; Kai M; Kusama T
Br J Radiol; 2005 Oct; 78(934):922-7. PubMed ID: 16177015
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. Computed and conventional chest radiography: a comparison of image quality and radiation dose.
Ramli K; Abdullah BJ; Ng KH; Mahmud R; Hussain AF
Australas Radiol; 2005 Dec; 49(6):460-6. PubMed ID: 16351609
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Detection of monitoring materials on bedside chest radiographs with the most recent generation of storage phosphor plates: dose increase does not improve detection performance.
Eisenhuber E; Stadler A; Prokop M; Fuchsjager M; Weber M; Schaefer-Prokop C
Radiology; 2003 Apr; 227(1):216-21. PubMed ID: 12668747
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
