Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “RADIOGRAPHY”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 145 records · Page 8Linked to original sources
PubMed1995

Digital luminescence radiography and conventional radiography in abdominal contrast examinations.

In 326 patients abdominal contrast radiographs were compared to digital luminescence radiographs (DLR) and conventional screen-film system ones. The digital exposure dose was 50% of the conventional. In DLR, 2 different types of postprocessed images were obtained from each data set. A display with low spatial frequency enhancement filtered to look like a conventional radiograph was compared to a display with high spatial frequency enhancement. Conventional and DLR images were evaluated randomly and separately by 4 radiologists by means of a questionnaire. DLR proved to be diagnostically equivalent to the conventional technique with the exception of a slightly diminished visibility of the mucosal pattern. High spatial frequency enhancement did not provide additional diagnostic information and should be dispensed with in abdominal examinations.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Digital radiography with a large-scale electronic flat-panel detector vs. screen-film radiography: observer preference in clinical skeletal diagnostics.

The imaging performance of a recently developed digital flat-panel detector system was compared with conventional screen-film imaging in an observer preference study. In total, 34 image pairs of various regions of the skeleton were obtained in 24 patients; 30 image pairs were included in the study. The conventional images were acquired with 250- and 400-speed screen-film combinations, using the standard technique of our department. Within hours, the digital images were obtained using identical exposure parameters. The digital system employed a large-area (43x43 cm) flat-panel detector based on amorphous silicon (Trixell Pixium 4600), integrated in a Bucky table. Six radiologists independently evaluated the image pairs with respect to image latitude, soft tissue rendition, rendition of the periosteal and enosteal border of cortical bone, rendition of cancellous bone and the visibility of potentially present pathological changes, using a subjective five-point scale. The digital images were rated significantly (p=0.001) better than the screen-film images with respect to soft tissue rendition and image latitude. Also the rendition of the cancellous bone and the periosteal and enosteal border of the cortical bone was rated significantly (p=0.05) better for the flat-panel detector. The visibility of pathological lesions was equivalent; only large-area sclerotic lesions (n=2) were seen superiorly on screen-film images. The new digital flat-panel detector based on amorphous silicon appears to be at least equivalent to conventional screen-film combinations for skeletal examinations, and in most respects even superior.

Aged↗