4Bley TA,Kotter E,Sauemssig U,et al.Using receiver operanng characterisfc methodology to evaluate the diagnostic quality of radiography on paper prinl versus flm.AJR,2003,181(6):1487-1490.
5Schueller G,Kaindl E,MatzekWK,et al.lmage quality of a wetLaser printer versus a paper printer for full2Field digital mammograms[J].AJR,2006,186(l):38-43.
6Schulze RK, Schulze D,Voss K,et al.Quality of individually calibrated customary printers for assessment of typical dental diagnoses on glossy paper prints a multicenter pilot study[J].Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oval Radiol Endod,2008,106(14):578-586.
7Gerd Schueller,Elisabeth Kaindll,Wolfgang K Matzek,et al.lmage quality of a wet laser printer versus a paper printer for full-field digital mammograms [J].AJtL,2006,186(1):38-43.
8Marfnoli C,Pretolesi F,Del-Bono V,et al.Benign lymphoepithelial lesion in HIV-positive patients; spectrum of findings at gray-scale and Doppler sonoaphy[J].AJR,1995,(165):532-534.
