These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8796650)
1. Computed radiography and film digitizer inputs to an intensive care unit teleradiology system: an image quality comparison. Huda W; Honeyman JC; Palmer CK; Frost MM; Staab EV Acad Radiol; 1996 Feb; 3(2):110-4. PubMed ID: 8796650 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms. Kuzmiak CM; Pisano ED; Cole EB; Zeng D; Burns CB; Roberto C; Pavic D; Lee Y; Seo BK; Koomen M; Washburn D Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50. PubMed ID: 16279068 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Productivity and cost assessment of computed radiography, digital radiography, and screen-film for outpatient chest examinations. Andriole KP J Digit Imaging; 2002 Sep; 15(3):161-9. PubMed ID: 12532253 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Development of a high quality film duplication system using a laser digitizer: comparison with computed radiography. Yoshimura H; Xu XW; Doi K; MacMahon H; Hoffmann KR; Giger ML; Montner SM Med Phys; 1993; 20(1):51-8. PubMed ID: 8455513 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison between different cost devices for digital capture of X-ray films: an image characteristics detection approach. Salazar AJ; Camacho JC; Aguirre DA J Digit Imaging; 2012 Feb; 25(1):91-100. PubMed ID: 21614654 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of a photostimulable phosphor system with film for dental radiology. Huda W; Rill LN; Benn DK; Pettigrew JC Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 1997 Jun; 83(6):725-31. PubMed ID: 9195631 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Method of duplicating film using the CR system: evaluation of detectability in a simulated nodule. Fukuyama A; Ando S; Maeda K; Ida K; Suzuki T; Fukuyama K; Hasegawa T Radiat Med; 2005 Aug; 23(5):336-40. PubMed ID: 16342906 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Computed radiography versus mobile direct radiography for bedside chest radiographs: impact of dose on image quality and reader agreement. De Boo DW; Weber M; Deurloo EE; Streekstra GJ; Freling NJ; Dongelmans DA; Schaefer-Prokop CM Clin Radiol; 2011 Sep; 66(9):826-32. PubMed ID: 21570679 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. ROC-study of a teleradiology workstation versus film readings. Størmer J; Bolle SR; Sund T; Weller GE; Gitlin JN Acta Radiol; 1997 Jan; 38(1):176-80. PubMed ID: 9059424 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. An evaluation of the signal and noise characteristics of four CCD-based film digitizers. Hangiandreou NJ; O'Connor TJ; Felmlee JP Med Phys; 1998 Oct; 25(10):2020-6. PubMed ID: 9800711 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Design of a high-speed, high-resolution teleradiology network. Stewart BK; Dwyer SJ; Kangarloo H J Digit Imaging; 1992 Aug; 5(3):144-55. PubMed ID: 1520740 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Optimisation strategies introduced for CR at health care centres in Estonia. Kepler K; Vladimirov A Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):127-31. PubMed ID: 18252852 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Optimal steel thickness combined with computed radiography for portal imaging of nasopharyngeal cancer patients. Wu S; Jin X; Xie C; Cao G Med Phys; 2005 Oct; 32(10):3112-6. PubMed ID: 16279063 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]