ライフサイエンスコーパス: plain radiography

1 uclear imaging, nonobstetric ultrasound, and plain radiography).

2 CT is superior to plain radiography.

3 mpared with 37.2 minutes for combined US and plain radiography.

4 .86 compared with $57.60 for combined US and plain radiography.

5 k pain to undergo either rapid MR imaging or plain radiography.

6 pain after an inversion injury and underwent plain radiography.

7 Five also underwent plain radiography.

8 g studies, and was lower for nonmammographic plain radiography.

9 g tool in multiple myeloma (MM) patients was plain radiography.

10 In deceased victims, plain radiography aided identification, and in many othe

11 the quantum of disease may be difficult with plain radiography alone.

12 All patients underwent plain radiography and an ultrasound study.

13 The utility of plain radiography and computerized tomography (CT) of th

14 iant rs143383 was associated with LDD, using plain radiography and magnetic resonance imaging to iden

15 ose whose findings suggest systemic disease, plain radiography and simple laboratory tests can almost

16 and computed skin exposures in fluoroscopy, plain radiography, and digital imaging was generally wit

17 Plain radiography can demonstrate destructive changes in

18 thin reasonable time ranges, combined US and plain radiography cannot be cost equivalent to spiral CT

19 Imaging-by skeletal scintigraphy, plain radiography, computed tomography, or magnetic reso

20 least 1 diagnostic imaging study, defined as plain radiography, computed tomography, ultrasonography,

21 hemarthrosis and lipohemarthrosis underwent plain radiography, CT, and MR imaging.

22 east one normal advanced (imaging other than plain radiography) diagnostic study or with an unconfirm

23 In addition, evidence suggests that plain radiography for evaluation of blunt thoracic traum

24 nguishing patients most likely to have OA on plain radiography from those who will not.

25 ity of 88.5% and specificity of 93.3%, while plain radiography had sensitivity of 48.9% and specifici

26 nce imaging has been shown to be superior to plain radiography in demonstrating destructive changes.

27 imaging is a cost-effective replacement for plain radiography in patients with low back pain.

28 ound may be better in experienced hands than plain radiography in the diagnosis of slipped capital fe

29 Plain radiography is key in diagnosing bone diseases.

30 Plain radiography is of limited value for aiding the dia

31 Plain radiography is the first-line, essential screening

32 in the knee; in these cases, evaluation with plain radiography is warranted.

33 Plain radiography of the abdomen showed normal air-fluid

34 Radiologic studies included plain radiography of the skull (n = 5), computed tomogra

35 e of systemic disease underwent imaging with plain radiography or computed tomography (CT) and magnet

36 mbing-related radiologic studies were either plain radiography or CT.

37 ial schwannomas are difficult to diagnose at plain radiography or transthoracic echocardiography, oft

38 MATERIAL/METHODS: Eight different plain radiography pictures of ribs were performed with t

39 Participants underwent plain radiography (posteroanterior, skyline, and lateral

40 of the imaging studies performed were either plain radiography, primarily of the extremities and ches

41 aging findings consisting of sacroiliitis on plain radiography (sensitivity, 66%; specificity, 68%) o

42 However, plain radiography, the traditional method of detecting t

43 Plain radiography, three-dimensional endosonography, and

44 The combined cost of US and plain radiography was compared with the cost of spiral C

45 MRI and plain radiography were performed at baseline and week 26

46 ive children with skull fractures visible at plain radiography were referred to child protective serv

47 s direct technical cost than combined US and plain radiography when used to examine patients after ES

48 ocalization of proximal femur fractures from plain radiography with clinically relevant metrics.