122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8668802)
1. Effect of exposure variation on the clinical utility of chest radiographs.
Slone RM; Van Metter R; Senol E; Muka E; Pilgram TK
Radiology; 1996 May; 199(2):497-504. PubMed ID: 8668802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Scanning equalization radiography of the chest: assessment of image quality.
Wandtke JC; Plewes DP; Vogelstein E
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1985 Nov; 145(5):973-8. PubMed ID: 2931967
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Technical aspects of twin screen-film chest radiography: cost effective lung and mediastinal imaging.
McLean D; Gray JE; Swensen SJ; Vrieze TJ
Eur J Radiol; 1998 Mar; 27(1):53-60. PubMed ID: 9587768
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Optimal beam quality for chest computed radiography.
Oda N; Nakata H; Murakami S; Terada K; Nakamura K; Yoshida A
Invest Radiol; 1996 Mar; 31(3):126-31. PubMed ID: 8675419
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Clinical evaluation of twin screen-film chest radiography: cost effective lung and mediastinal imaging.
McLean D; Gray JE; Swensen SJ; Vrieze TJ
Eur J Radiol; 1998 Mar; 27(1):61-6. PubMed ID: 9587769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [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]
12. 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]
13. Chest radiographic image quality: comparison of asymmetric screen-film, digital storage phosphor, and digital selenium drum systems--preliminary study.
Beute GH; Flynn MJ; Eyler WR; Samei E; Spizarny DL; Zylak CJ
Radiographics; 1998; 18(3):745-54. PubMed ID: 9599395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Inter-observer variation in masked and unmasked images for quality evaluation of clinical radiographs.
Tingberg A; Eriksson F; Medin J; Besjakov J; Båth M; Håkansson M; Sandborg M; Almén A; Lanhede B; Alm-Carlsson G; Mattsson S; Månsson LG
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 114(1-3):62-8. PubMed ID: 15933082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [New imaging methods in thoracic diagnosis. A study to evaluate digital storage screen radiography, the slit technique ("AMBER"), asymmetric ("InSight") and conventional film-screen techniques].
Lehmann KJ; Busch HP; Drescher P; Loose R; Georgi M
Aktuelle Radiol; 1993 Jan; 3(1):14-9. PubMed ID: 8448224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing two film-screen systems for chest radiography.
Lefcoe MS; Cunningham IA; Vanderburgh LC; Sparrow RK
Can Assoc Radiol J; 1996 Jun; 47(3):213-9. PubMed ID: 8640420
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. [Digital chest x-rays with a selenium detector: a prospective comparison with a conventional film-screen combination].
Freund M; Reuter M; Palmié S; Harder E; Hutzelmann A; Heller M
Rofo; 1997 Feb; 166(2):101-7. PubMed ID: 9116250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
