Display Settings:

Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Results: 1 to 20 of 76

1.

Comparison of image acquisition and radiologist interpretation times in a diagnostic mammography center.

Kuzmiak CM, Cole E, Zeng D, Kim E, Koomen M, Lee Y, Pavic D, Pisano ED.

Acad Radiol. 2010 Sep;17(9):1168-74. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2010.04.018. Epub 2010 Jun 19.

PMID:
20646940
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
2.

Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times.

Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Solari M, Barke L, Reddy D, Wolfman J, Segal L, DeLeon P, Benjamin S, Willis L.

AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006 Jul;187(1):38-41.

PMID:
16794152
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
3.

Timed efficiency of interpretation of digital and film-screen screening mammograms.

Haygood TM, Wang J, Atkinson EN, Lane D, Stephens TW, Patel P, Whitman GJ.

AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Jan;192(1):216-20. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.3608.

PMID:
19098202
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
4.

The positive predictive value for diagnosis of breast cancer full-field digital mammography versus film-screen mammography in the diagnostic mammographic population.

Seo BK, Pisano ED, Kuzmiak CM, Koomen M, Pavic D, McLelland R, Lee Y, Cole EB, Mattingly D, Lee J.

Acad Radiol. 2006 Oct;13(10):1229-35.

PMID:
16979072
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
5.

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.

PMID:
16279068
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
6.

Comparison of paper print and soft copy reading in plain paediatric radiographs.

Maydell AT, Andronikou S, Ackermann C, Bezuidenhout AF.

J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2009 Oct;53(5):459-66. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9485.2009.02104.x.

PMID:
19788481
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
7.

Breast imaging: a comparison of digital luminescence radiographs displayed on TV-monitor and film-screen mammography.

Jarlman O, Borg A, Braw M, Kehler M, Lyttkens K, Samuelsson L.

Cancer Detect Prev. 1994;18(5):375-81.

PMID:
7812984
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
8.

Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading.

Skaane P, Diekmann F, Balleyguier C, Diekmann S, Piguet JC, Young K, Abdelnoor M, Niklason L.

Eur Radiol. 2008 Jun;18(6):1134-43. doi: 10.1007/s00330-008-0878-0. Epub 2008 Feb 27.

PMID:
18301902
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
9.

[ROC analysis comparing screen film mammography and digital mammography].

Gaspard-Bakhach S, Dilhuydy MH, Bonichon F, Barreau B, Henriques C, Maugey-Laulom B.

J Radiol. 2000 Feb;81(2):133-9. French.

PMID:
10705143
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Free Article
10.

Results of a survey on digital screening mammography: prevalence, efficiency, and use of ancillary diagnostic AIDS.

Haygood TM, Whitman GJ, Atkinson EN, Nikolova RG, Sandoval SY, Dempsey PJ.

J Am Coll Radiol. 2008 Apr;5(4):585-92. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2007.10.019.

PMID:
18359447
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
11.

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of breast masses using digitized images versus screen-film mammography.

Liang Z, Du X, Liu J, Yao X, Yang Y, Li K.

Acta Radiol. 2008 Jul;49(6):618-22. doi: 10.1080/02841850802014610.

PMID:
18568552
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
12.

Performance comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography in clinical practice.

Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Cutter GR.

Med Phys. 2002 May;29(5):830-4.

PMID:
12033579
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
13.

[ROC analysis of image quality in digital luminescence radiography in comparison with current film-screen systems in mammography].

Wiebringhaus R, John V, Müller RD, Hirche H, Voss M, Callies R.

Aktuelle Radiol. 1995 Jul;5(4):263-7. German.

PMID:
7548257
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
14.

Diagnostic digital mammography in Japan: issues to consider.

Uematsu T.

Breast Cancer. 2010 Jul;17(3):180-2. doi: 10.1007/s12282-009-0196-7. Epub 2010 Jan 16.

PMID:
20082161
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
15.

Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population.

Cole E, Pisano ED, Brown M, Kuzmiak C, Braeuning MP, Kim HH, Jong R, Walsh R.

Acad Radiol. 2004 Aug;11(8):879-86.

PMID:
15288038
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
16.

Preliminary time-flow study: comparison of interpretation times between PACS workstations and films.

Kato H, Kubota G, Kojima K, Hayashi N, Nishihara E, Kura H, Aizawa M.

Comput Med Imaging Graph. 1995 May-Jun;19(3):261-5.

PMID:
7641170
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
17.

The effects of gray scale image processing on digital mammography interpretation performance.

Cole EB, Pisano ED, Zeng D, Muller K, Aylward SR, Park S, Kuzmiak C, Koomen M, Pavic D, Walsh R, Baker J, Gimenez EI, Freimanis R.

Acad Radiol. 2005 May;12(5):585-95.

PMID:
15866131
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
18.

[Image quality and radiation exposure in digital mammography with storage phosphor screens in a magnification technic].

Fiedler E, Aichinger U, Böhner C, Säbel M, Schulz-Wendtland R, Bautz W.

Rofo. 1999 Jul;171(1):60-4. German.

PMID:
10464507
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
19.

Current status and issues of screening digital mammography in Japan.

Yamada T.

Breast Cancer. 2010 Jul;17(3):163-8. doi: 10.1007/s12282-009-0191-z. Epub 2010 Feb 9.

PMID:
20143190
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
20.

Digital mammography workflow.

Odle TG.

Radiol Technol. 2011 Jan-Feb;82(3):245M-60M.

PMID:
21209426
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Display Settings:

Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk