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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

189 related items for PubMed ID: 16177015

  • 1. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Experimental evaluation of a portable indirect flat-panel detector for the pediatric chest: comparison with storage phosphor radiography at different exposures by using a chest phantom.
    Rapp-Bernhardt U, Bernhardt TM, Lenzen H, Esseling R, Roehl FW, Schiborr M, Theobald-Hormann I, Heindel W.
    Radiology; 2005 Nov; 237(2):485-91. PubMed ID: 16170012
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Digital radiography versus conventional radiography in chest imaging: diagnostic performance of a large-area silicon flat-panel detector in a clinical CT-controlled study.
    Garmer M, Hennigs SP, Jäger HJ, Schrick F, van de Loo T, Jacobs A, Hanusch A, Christmann A, Mathias K.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2000 Jan; 174(1):75-80. PubMed ID: 10628458
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Selenium radiography versus storage phosphor and conventional radiography in the detection of simulated chest lesions.
    Schaefer-Prokop CM, Prokop M, Schmidt A, Neitzel U, Galanski M.
    Radiology; 1996 Oct; 201(1):45-50. PubMed ID: 8816519
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Digital chest radiography with a solid-state flat-panel x-ray detector: contrast-detail evaluation with processed images printed on film hard copy.
    Chotas HG, Ravin CE.
    Radiology; 2001 Mar; 218(3):679-82. PubMed ID: 11230639
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Comparison of eight different digital chest radiography systems: variation in detection of simulated chest disease.
    Kroft LJ, Veldkamp WJ, Mertens BJ, Boot MV, Geleijns J.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Aug; 185(2):339-46. PubMed ID: 16037503
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Flat-panel x-ray detector based on amorphous silicon versus asymmetric screen-film system: phantom study of dose reduction and depiction of simulated findings.
    Rapp-Bernhardt U, Roehl FW, Gibbs RC, Schmidl H, Krause UW, Bernhardt TM.
    Radiology; 2003 May; 227(2):484-92. PubMed ID: 12676965
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Comparing image quality of flat-panel chest radiography with storage phosphor radiography and film-screen radiography.
    Ganten M, Radeleff B, Kampschulte A, Daniels MD, Kauffmann GW, Hansmann J.
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2003 Jul; 181(1):171-6. PubMed ID: 12818852
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. [Chest radiography: ROC phantom study of four different digital systems and one conventional radiographic system].
    Redlich U, Reissberg S, Hoeschen C, Effenberger O, Fessel A, Preuss H, Scherlach C, Döhring W.
    Rofo; 2003 Jan; 175(1):38-45. PubMed ID: 12525979
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Digital slot-scan charge-coupled device radiography versus AMBER and Bucky screen-film radiography: comparison of image quality in a phantom study.
    Veldkamp WJ, Kroft LJ, Mertens BJ, Geleijns J.
    Radiology; 2005 Jun; 235(3):857-66. PubMed ID: 15845787
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Performance of a flat-panel detector in the detection of artificial erosive changes: comparison with conventional screen-film and storage-phosphor radiography.
    Ludwig K, Henschel A, Bernhardt TM, Lenzen H, Wormanns D, Diederich S, Heindel W.
    Eur Radiol; 2003 Jun; 13(6):1316-23. PubMed ID: 12764648
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 10.