205 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25987428)
1. Mammographic positioning quality of newly trained versus experienced radiographers in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme.
van Landsveld-Verhoeven C; den Heeten GJ; Timmers J; Broeders MJ
Eur Radiol; 2015 Nov; 25(11):3322-7. PubMed ID: 25987428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [The correct mammographic positioning in breast cancer screening].
Landsveld-Verhoeven C; den Heeten GJ; Timmers JM; Broeders MJ
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2015; 159():A9488. PubMed ID: 26507067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Improving Performance of Mammographic Breast Positioning in an Academic Radiology Practice.
Pal S; Ikeda DM; Jesinger RA; Mickelsen LJ; Chen CA; Larson DB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Apr; 210(4):807-815. PubMed ID: 29412019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Value of audits in breast cancer screening quality assurance programmes.
Geertse TD; Holland R; Timmers JM; Paap E; Pijnappel RM; Broeders MJ; den Heeten GJ
Eur Radiol; 2015 Nov; 25(11):3338-47. PubMed ID: 25903711
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Mammography Positioning Standards in the Digital Era: Is the Status Quo Acceptable?
Huppe AI; Overman KL; Gatewood JB; Hill JD; Miller LC; Inciardi MF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Dec; 209(6):1419-1425. PubMed ID: 28871810
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Mammographic image quality in relation to positioning of the breast: A multicentre international evaluation of the assessment systems currently used, to provide an evidence base for establishing a standardised method of assessment.
Taylor K; Parashar D; Bouverat G; Poulos A; Gullien R; Stewart E; Aarre R; Crystal P; Wallis M
Radiography (Lond); 2017 Nov; 23(4):343-349. PubMed ID: 28965899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Technologists' Characteristics and Quality of Positioning in Daily Practice in a Canadian Breast Cancer Screening Program.
Guertin MH; Théberge I; Zomahoun HT; Dufresne MP; Pelletier É; Brisson J
Acad Radiol; 2016 Nov; 23(11):1359-1366. PubMed ID: 27567127
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Breast screening: PERFORMS identifies key mammographic training needs.
Scott HJ; Gale AG
Br J Radiol; 2006 Dec; 79 Spec No 2():S127-33. PubMed ID: 17209118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Can radiographers read screening mammograms?
Wivell G; Denton ER; Eve CB; Inglis JC; Harvey I
Clin Radiol; 2003 Jan; 58(1):63-7. PubMed ID: 12565207
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The role of self-evaluation and education of radiographers involved in a breast cancer screening program at Clinical Hospital Center Rijeka.
Zujić PV; Božanić A; Jurković S; Šegota D; Dujmić EG; Čandrlić B; Karić M
Radiography (Lond); 2021 Nov; 27(4):1162-1165. PubMed ID: 34217604
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Introduction of additional double reading of mammograms by radiographers: effects on a biennial screening programme outcome.
Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; van Ineveld BM; Roumen RM; de Koning HJ
Eur J Cancer; 2008 Jun; 44(9):1223-8. PubMed ID: 18400488
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Performance of radiographers in mammogram interpretation: a systematic review.
van den Biggelaar FJ; Nelemans PJ; Flobbe K
Breast; 2008 Feb; 17(1):85-90. PubMed ID: 17764941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Assessment of breast positioning criteria in mammographic screening: Agreement between artificial intelligence software and radiographers.
Waade GG; Danielsen AS; Holen ÅS; Larsen M; Hanestad B; Hopland NM; Kalcheva V; Hofvind S
J Med Screen; 2021 Dec; 28(4):448-455. PubMed ID: 33715511
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Mammographic positioning: evaluation from the view box.
Bassett LW; Hirbawi IA; DeBruhl N; Hayes MK
Radiology; 1993 Sep; 188(3):803-6. PubMed ID: 8351351
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program.
Kan L; Olivotto IA; Warren Burhenne LJ; Sickles EA; Coldman AJ
Radiology; 2000 May; 215(2):563-7. PubMed ID: 10796940
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. An image quality review programme in a population-based mammography screening service.
Galli V; Pini M; De Metrio D; de Bianchi PS; Bucchi L
J Med Radiat Sci; 2021 Sep; 68(3):253-259. PubMed ID: 34085397
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Evaluation of the quality of mammographic breast positioning: a quality improvement study.
Rouette J; Elfassy N; Bouganim N; Yin H; Lasry N; Azoulay L
CMAJ Open; 2021; 9(2):E607-E612. PubMed ID: 34088731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Radiographers as film readers in screening mammography: an assessment of competence under test and screening conditions.
Pauli R; Hammond S; Cooke J; Ansell J
Br J Radiol; 1996 Jan; 69(817):10-4. PubMed ID: 8785616
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
