| pubmed-article:14500204 | rdf:type | pubmed:Citation | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0042070 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0037107 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0178602 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0851346 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0392756 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0043309 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C1547104 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0180392 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:issue | 4 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:dateCreated | 2003-9-22 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:abstractText | The purpose of the study was to examine the possibilities for reducing radiation exposure in uroradiology using digital flat-panel silicon X-ray detector radiography. We compared the subjectively determined image quality of abdominal radiographs and urograms obtained on a digital flat-panel detector radiography system with those obtained on a computed radiography system. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Fifty patients who had a clinical indication for urography underwent unenhanced abdominal imaging that was alternately performed using flat-panel silicon X-ray detector radiography or computed radiography. For patients who required a second radiograph with contrast medium, the examination modality was changed to avoid exposing the patients to excess radiation. The images obtained on flat-panel X-ray detector radiography were obtained at half the radiation dose of the images obtained on computed radiography (800 speed vs 400 speed). The resulting 50 pairs of images were interpreted by four independent observers who rated the detectability of structures of bone and the efferent urinary tract relevant to diagnosis and compared the image quality. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:language | eng | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:journal | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:citationSubset | AIM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:status | MEDLINE | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:month | Oct | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:issn | 0361-803X | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:BraunWW | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:LacknerKK | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:HauptGG | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:LAWSE QEQ | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:KrugBB | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:ZähringerMM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:HesselmannVV | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:SchulteOO | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:issnType | Print | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:volume | 181 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:owner | NLM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:authorsComplete | Y | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:pagination | 931-7 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:dateRevised | 2008-2-15 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:14500204... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:14500204... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:14500204... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:14500204... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:14500204... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:14500204... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:14500204... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:14500204... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:14500204... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:14500204... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:year | 2003 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:articleTitle | Reducing the radiation dose during excretory urography: flat-panel silicon x-ray detector versus computed radiography. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:affiliation | Department of Radiology, Medical School, University of Cologne, Joseph-Stelzmann-Strasse 9, 50924 Cologne, Germany. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:publicationType | Journal Article | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:14500204 | pubmed:publicationType | Comparative Study | lld:pubmed |
