314 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8659358)
1. 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]
2. Visibility of different foreign bodies in the maxillofacial region using plain radiography, CT, MRI and ultrasonography: an in vitro study.
Javadrashid R; Fouladi DF; Golamian M; Hajalioghli P; Daghighi MH; Shahmorady Z; Niknejad MT
Dentomaxillofac Radiol; 2015; 44(4):20140229. PubMed ID: 25426703
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The detection of foreign bodies in soft tissue--comparison of conventional and digital radiography.
Roobottom CA; Weston MJ
Clin Radiol; 1994 May; 49(5):330-2. PubMed ID: 8013198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Detection of foreign bodies in the hand.
Russell RC; Williamson DA; Sullivan JW; Suchy H; Suliman O
J Hand Surg Am; 1991 Jan; 16(1):2-11. PubMed ID: 1995686
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Detection of soft-tissue foreign bodies by plain radiography, xerography, computed tomography, and ultrasonography.
Ginsburg MJ; Ellis GL; Flom LL
Ann Emerg Med; 1990 Jun; 19(6):701-3. PubMed ID: 2188542
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Demonstration of non-metallic foreign bodies by conventional x-ray techniques and computer tomography. Absorption coefficient of glass, plastic and wood (author's transl)].
Schmitt WG; Hübener KH
Rofo; 1981 Aug; 135(2):209-13. PubMed ID: 6212316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Semi-quantitative scoring of imaging modalities in detecting soft tissue foreign bodies: an in vitro study.
Alfuraih AM; Almutairi FN; Alotaibi SB; Alshmrani AA
Acta Radiol; 2022 Apr; 63(4):474-480. PubMed ID: 33673754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Visibility of Different Intraorbital Foreign Bodies Using Plain Radiography, Computed Tomography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: An In Vitro Study.
Javadrashid R; Golamian M; Shahrzad M; Hajalioghli P; Shahmorady Z; Fouladi DF; Sadrarhami S; Akhoundzadeh L
Can Assoc Radiol J; 2017 May; 68(2):194-201. PubMed ID: 26899378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Computed tomography, ultrasonography and plain radiography in the detection of foreign bodies in pork muscle tissue.
Torfing KF; Teisen HG; Skjødt T
Rofo; 1988 Jul; 149(1):60-2. PubMed ID: 2840712
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Do we really need plain and soft-tissue radiographies to detect radiolucent foreign bodies in the ED?
Turkcuer I; Atilla R; Topacoglu H; Yanturali S; Kiyan S; Kabakci N; Bozkurt S; Cevik AA
Am J Emerg Med; 2006 Nov; 24(7):763-8. PubMed ID: 17098094
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Visibility of foreign bodies in soft tissue in plain radiographs, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound. An in vitro study.
Oikarinen KS; Nieminen TM; Mäkäräinen H; Pyhtinen J
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 1993 Apr; 22(2):119-24. PubMed ID: 8320449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Screen-film versus computed radiography imaging of the hand: a direct comparison.
Swee RG; Gray JE; Beabout JW; McLeod RA; Cooper KL; Bond JR; Wenger DE
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1997 Feb; 168(2):539-42. PubMed ID: 9016243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Accuracy of radiography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing foreign bodies in the foot.
Pattamapaspong N; Srisuwan T; Sivasomboon C; Nasuto M; Suwannahoy P; Settakorn J; Kraisarin J; Guglielmi G
Radiol Med; 2013 Mar; 118(2):303-10. PubMed ID: 22744349
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effects of Image Postprocessing in Digital Radiography to Detect Wooden, Soft Tissue Foreign Bodies.
Kleinfelder TR; Ng CK
Radiol Technol; 2022; 93(6):544-554. PubMed ID: 35790309
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Accuracy of bedside chest hard-copy screen-film versus hard- and soft-copy computed radiographs in a medical intensive care unit: receiver operating characteristic analysis.
Kundel HL; Gefter W; Aronchick J; Miller W; Hatabu H; Whitfill CH; Miller W
Radiology; 1997 Dec; 205(3):859-63. PubMed ID: 9393548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Use of plain radiography and computed tomography to identify fish bone foreign bodies.
Lue AJ; Fang WD; Manolidis S
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg; 2000 Oct; 123(4):435-8. PubMed ID: 11020181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Computed radiography in neonatal and pediatric intensive care units: a comparison of 2.5 K x 2 K soft-copy images vs digital hard-copy film.
Brill PW; Winchester P; Cahill P; Lesser M; Durfee SM; Giess CS; Auld PA; Greenwald B
Pediatr Radiol; 1996; 26(5):333-6. PubMed ID: 8657462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
