Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

X-ray Imaging01:24

X-ray Imaging

German physicist Wilhelm Röntgen (1845–1923) was experimenting with electrical current when he discovered that a mysterious and invisible "ray" would pass through his flesh but leave an outline of his bones on a screen coated with a metal compound. In 1895, Röntgen made the first durable record of the internal parts of a living human: an "X-ray" image (as it came to be called) of his wife’s hand. Scientists worldwide quickly began their own experiments with X-rays, and by 1900, X-ray was widely...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same authorSame journal

Medical physics aspects of cancer care in the Asia Pacific region: 2011 survey results.

Biomedical imaging and intervention journal·2012
Same author

Radiofrequency ablation of a misdiagnosed Brodie's abscess.

Biomedical imaging and intervention journal·2012
Same author

Optimising the scan delay for arterial phase imaging of the liver using the bolus tracking technique.

Biomedical imaging and intervention journal·2012
Same author

Cotton-ball granuloma mimicking axillary lymphadenopathy in a breast cancer patient.

Biomedical imaging and intervention journal·2012
Same author

The birth of an open access multidisciplinary online journal.

Biomedical imaging and intervention journal·2011
Same author

Sustaining and strengthening biij.

Biomedical imaging and intervention journal·2011

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 1, 2026

Detection of Architectural Distortion in Prior Mammograms via Analysis of Oriented Patterns
13:44

Detection of Architectural Distortion in Prior Mammograms via Analysis of Oriented Patterns

Published on: August 30, 2013

Improved fracture detection using the mammographic film-screen combination.

Y Faridah1, Bjj Abdullah, Kh Ng

  • 1Department of Biomedical Imaging (Radiology), Faculty of Medicine, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal
|June 1, 2011
PubMed
Summary

The mammographic film-screen combination (MFC) offers superior fracture detection compared to the standard film-screen combination (SFC). However, the MFC results in a higher radiation dose to patients.

Keywords:
Fracturedetectionfilm-screen combinationmammography

More Related Videos

Clinical Imaging of Microwave Mammography
05:28

Clinical Imaging of Microwave Mammography

Published on: November 14, 2025

Assessment of Bone Fracture Healing Using Micro-Computed Tomography
12:04

Assessment of Bone Fracture Healing Using Micro-Computed Tomography

Published on: December 9, 2022

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 1, 2026

Detection of Architectural Distortion in Prior Mammograms via Analysis of Oriented Patterns
13:44

Detection of Architectural Distortion in Prior Mammograms via Analysis of Oriented Patterns

Published on: August 30, 2013

Clinical Imaging of Microwave Mammography
05:28

Clinical Imaging of Microwave Mammography

Published on: November 14, 2025

Assessment of Bone Fracture Healing Using Micro-Computed Tomography
12:04

Assessment of Bone Fracture Healing Using Micro-Computed Tomography

Published on: December 9, 2022

Area of Science:

  • Radiology
  • Medical Imaging

Background:

  • Single emulsion/screen systems are typically used in mammography.
  • Their application in general radiography is less common.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare mammographic film-screen combination (MFC) with standard film-screen combination (SFC).
  • To evaluate detection of fractures and soft tissue injuries.
  • To assess image quality, film characteristics, dose, and cost.

Main Methods:

  • Prospective study involving 41 patients with suspected injuries.
  • Radiographs taken using both MFC and SFC for hands, wrists, ankles, and feet.
  • Comparative analysis of image quality, fracture detection, and soft tissue injuries.

Main Results:

  • MFC demonstrated statistically superior image quality over SFC.
  • Fractures were detected exclusively with MFC in 10% of cases, including tiny bone fragments.
  • MFC exhibited higher spatial resolution but lower film speed and contrast than SFC.
  • MFC resulted in higher radiation doses compared to SFC.

Conclusions:

  • MFC is more effective for detecting fractures than SFC.
  • The increased radiation dose (35-55% higher) with MFC is a significant consideration.