AJR Not a Member? Click to Join ARRS!
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ott, D.
Right arrow Articles by Wu, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ott, D.
Right arrow Articles by Wu, W.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 147, Issue 4, 697-700
Copyright © 1986 by American Roentgen Ray Society


Articles

Radiographic efficacy in gastric ulcer: comparison of single-contrast and multiphasic examinations

DJ Ott, YM Chen, DW Gelfand, and WC Wu

The efficacies of single-contrast and multiphasic examinations of the stomach for gastric ulcer detection were compared in 90 patients with 102 gastric ulcers, and in a control group of 382 patients without gastric ulcer. Single-contrast and multiphasic sensitivities were 62% and 64%, respectively. Radiographic detection depended significantly on ulcer size: Only 24% of ulcers under 5 mm were detected, compared with 89% of ulcers 5 mm or larger. Radiographic specificities and positive predictive values were similar for both types of examination. Moderate variation of the sensitivities and specificities of the three radiologists was observed, with ranges of 53-69% and 90-98%, respectively. Results indicated that gastric ulcer detection is more related to ulcer size and to individual interpretive variations than to the type of examination.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1986 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.