143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25504427)
1. Comparison of a flexible versus a rigid breast compression paddle: pain experience, projected breast area, radiation dose and technical image quality.
Broeders MJ; Ten Voorde M; Veldkamp WJ; van Engen RE; van Landsveld-Verhoeven C; 't Jong-Gunneman MN; de Win J; Greve KD; Paap E; den Heeten GJ
Eur Radiol; 2015 Mar; 25(3):821-9. PubMed ID: 25504427
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Mammography with and without radiolucent positioning sheets: Comparison of projected breast area, pain experience, radiation dose and technical image quality.
Timmers J; Voorde MT; Engen RE; Landsveld-Verhoeven Cv; Pijnappel R; Greve KD; Heeten GJ; Broeders MJ
Eur J Radiol; 2015 Oct; 84(10):1903-9. PubMed ID: 26272030
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Mammography in females with an implanted medical device: impact on image quality, pain and anxiety.
Paap E; Witjes M; van Landsveld-Verhoeven C; Pijnappel RM; Maas AH; Broeders MJ
Br J Radiol; 2016 Oct; 89(1066):20160142. PubMed ID: 27452263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A novel approach to mammographic breast compression: Improved standardization and reduced discomfort by controlling pressure instead of force.
de Groot JE; Broeders MJ; Branderhorst W; den Heeten GJ; Grimbergen CA
Med Phys; 2013 Aug; 40(8):081901. PubMed ID: 23927315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Breast compression and experienced pain during mammography by use of three different compression paddles.
Moshina N; Sebuødegård S; Evensen KT; Hantho C; Iden KA; Hofvind S
Eur J Radiol; 2019 Jun; 115():59-65. PubMed ID: 31084760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Reduction of discomfort during mammography utilizing a radiolucent cushioning pad.
Markle L; Roux S; Sayre JW
Breast J; 2004; 10(4):345-9. PubMed ID: 15239794
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Experience of pain during mammographic screening by three different compression paddles.
Moshina N; Sagstad S; Holen ÅS; Backmann HA; Westermann LC; Hofvind S
Radiography (Lond); 2023 Aug; 29(5):903-910. PubMed ID: 37453253
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Can Breast Compression Be Reduced in Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis?
Agasthya GA; D'Orsi E; Kim YJ; Handa P; Ho CP; D'Orsi CJ; Sechopoulos I
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Nov; 209(5):W322-W332. PubMed ID: 28929809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Towards personalized compression in mammography: a comparison study between pressure- and force-standardization.
de Groot JE; Branderhorst W; Grimbergen CA; den Heeten GJ; Broeders MJM
Eur J Radiol; 2015 Mar; 84(3):384-391. PubMed ID: 25554008
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Breast compression and radiation dose in two different mammographic oblique projections: 45 and 60 degrees.
Brnić Z; Hebrang A
Eur J Radiol; 2001 Oct; 40(1):10-5. PubMed ID: 11673002
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Breast thickness in routine mammograms: effect on image quality and radiation dose.
Helvie MA; Chan HP; Adler DD; Boyd PG
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Dec; 163(6):1371-4. PubMed ID: 7992731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Compression force and radiation dose in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.
Waade GG; Sanderud A; Hofvind S
Eur J Radiol; 2017 Mar; 88():41-46. PubMed ID: 28189207
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Evaluation of pressure-controlled mammography compression paddles with respect to force-controlled compression paddles in clinical practice.
Jeukens CRLPN; van Dijk T; Berben C; Wildberger JE; Lobbes MBI
Eur Radiol; 2019 May; 29(5):2545-2552. PubMed ID: 30617472
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Mammographic compression--a need for mechanical standardization.
Branderhorst W; de Groot JE; Highnam R; Chan A; Böhm-Vélez M; Broeders MJ; den Heeten GJ; Grimbergen CA
Eur J Radiol; 2015 Apr; 84(4):596-602. PubMed ID: 25596915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Distribution of pressure on the breast in mammography using flexible and rigid compression plates: implications on patient handling.
Dustler M; Förnvik D; Timberg P; Zackrisson S; Muller S
Acta Radiol; 2021 Dec; 62(12):1583-1591. PubMed ID: 33280392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Clinical validation of a pressure-standardized compression mammography system.
den Boer D; Dam-Vervloet LAJ; Boomsma MF; de Boer E; van Dalen JA; Poot L
Eur J Radiol; 2018 Aug; 105():251-254. PubMed ID: 30017290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Average glandular dose in paired digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis acquisitions in a population based screening program: effects of measuring breast density, air kerma and beam quality.
Østerås BH; Skaane P; Gullien R; Martinsen ACT
Phys Med Biol; 2018 Jan; 63(3):035006. PubMed ID: 29311416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Correspondence in texture features between two mammographic views.
Gupta S; Markey MK
Med Phys; 2005 Jun; 32(6):1598-606. PubMed ID: 16013719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
