These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
267 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25100302)
1. The accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with coned compression magnification mammography in the assessment of abnormalities found on mammography. Morel JC; Iqbal A; Wasan RK; Peacock C; Evans DR; Rahim R; Goligher J; Michell MJ Clin Radiol; 2014 Nov; 69(11):1112-6. PubMed ID: 25100302 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Diagnostic accuracy and recall rates for digital mammography and digital mammography combined with one-view and two-view tomosynthesis: results of an enriched reader study. Rafferty EA; Park JM; Philpotts LE; Poplack SP; Sumkin JH; Halpern EF; Niklason LT AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Feb; 202(2):273-81. PubMed ID: 24450665 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Impact of prior mammograms on combined reading of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Kim WH; Chang JM; Koo HR; Seo M; Bae MS; Lee J; Moon WK Acta Radiol; 2017 Feb; 58(2):148-155. PubMed ID: 27178032 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? A comparison study in a simulated clinical setting. Brandt KR; Craig DA; Hoskins TL; Henrichsen TL; Bendel EC; Brandt SR; Mandrekar J AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Feb; 200(2):291-8. PubMed ID: 23345348 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Accuracy of GE digital breast tomosynthesis vs supplementary mammographic views for diagnosis of screen-detected soft-tissue breast lesions. Cornford EJ; Turnbull AE; James JJ; Tsang R; Akram T; Burrell HC; Hamilton LJ; Tennant SL; Bagnall MJ; Puri S; Ball GR; Chen Y; Jones V Br J Radiol; 2016; 89(1058):20150735. PubMed ID: 26559441 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography for detecting and characterising invasive lobular cancers: a multi-reader study. Mariscotti G; Durando M; Houssami N; Zuiani C; Martincich L; Londero V; Caramia E; Clauser P; Campanino PP; Regini E; Luparia A; Castellano I; Bergamasco L; Sapino A; Fonio P; Bazzocchi M; Gandini G Clin Radiol; 2016 Sep; 71(9):889-95. PubMed ID: 27210245 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Two-view and single-view tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution X-ray imaging observer study. Wallis MG; Moa E; Zanca F; Leifland K; Danielsson M Radiology; 2012 Mar; 262(3):788-96. PubMed ID: 22274840 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Skaane P; Bandos AI; Eben EB; Jebsen IN; Krager M; Haakenaasen U; Ekseth U; Izadi M; Hofvind S; Gullien R Radiology; 2014 Jun; 271(3):655-63. PubMed ID: 24484063 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. Michell MJ; Iqbal A; Wasan RK; Evans DR; Peacock C; Lawinski CP; Douiri A; Wilson R; Whelehan P Clin Radiol; 2012 Oct; 67(10):976-81. PubMed ID: 22625656 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: comparison of the accuracy of lesion measurement and characterization using specimens. Seo N; Kim HH; Shin HJ; Cha JH; Kim H; Moon JH; Gong G; Ahn SH; Son BH Acta Radiol; 2014 Jul; 55(6):661-7. PubMed ID: 24005560 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Digital breast tomosynthesis within a symptomatic "one-stop breast clinic" for characterization of subtle findings. Bansal GJ; Young P Br J Radiol; 2015 Sep; 88(1053):20140855. PubMed ID: 26133221 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Screening Mammography Findings From One Standard Projection Only in the Era of Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. Cohen EO; Tso HH; Phalak KA; Mayo RC; Leung JWT AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Aug; 211(2):445-451. PubMed ID: 29792742 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. One-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST): a prospective, population-based, diagnostic accuracy study. Zackrisson S; Lång K; Rosso A; Johnson K; Dustler M; Förnvik D; Förnvik H; Sartor H; Timberg P; Tingberg A; Andersson I Lancet Oncol; 2018 Nov; 19(11):1493-1503. PubMed ID: 30322817 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Clinical performance of Siemens digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard supplementary mammography for the assessment of screen-detected soft-tissue abnormalities: a multi-reader study. Whelehan P; Heywang-Köbrunner SH; Vinnicombe SJ; Hacker A; Jänsch A; Hapca A; Gray R; Jenkin M; Lowry K; Oeppen R; Reilly M; Stahnke M; Evans A Clin Radiol; 2017 Jan; 72(1):95.e9-95.e15. PubMed ID: 27737763 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Detection and characterization of breast lesions in a selective diagnostic population: diagnostic accuracy study for comparison between one-view digital breast tomosynthesis and two-view full-field digital mammography. Chae EY; Kim HH; Cha JH; Shin HJ; Choi WJ Br J Radiol; 2016 Jun; 89(1062):20150743. PubMed ID: 27072391 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis. Gennaro G; Hendrick RE; Toledano A; Paquelet JR; Bezzon E; Chersevani R; di Maggio C; La Grassa M; Pescarini L; Polico I; Proietti A; Baldan E; Pomerri F; Muzzio PC Eur Radiol; 2013 Aug; 23(8):2087-94. PubMed ID: 23620367 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Skaane P; Gullien R; Bjørndal H; Eben EB; Ekseth U; Haakenaasen U; Jahr G; Jebsen IN; Krager M Acta Radiol; 2012 Jun; 53(5):524-9. PubMed ID: 22593120 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study. Skaane P; Balleyguier C; Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Piguet JC; Young K; Niklason LT Radiology; 2005 Oct; 237(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 16100086 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Replacing single-view mediolateral oblique (MLO) digital mammography (DM) with synthesized mammography (SM) with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images: Comparison of the diagnostic performance and radiation dose with two-view DM with or without MLO-DBT. Kang HJ; Chang JM; Lee J; Song SE; Shin SU; Kim WH; Bae MS; Moon WK Eur J Radiol; 2016 Nov; 85(11):2042-2048. PubMed ID: 27776658 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Performance comparison of single-view digital breast tomosynthesis plus single-view digital mammography with two-view digital mammography. Gennaro G; Hendrick RE; Ruppel P; Chersevani R; di Maggio C; La Grassa M; Pescarini L; Polico I; Proietti A; Baldan E; Bezzon E; Pomerri F; Muzzio PC Eur Radiol; 2013 Mar; 23(3):664-72. PubMed ID: 22976919 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]