153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28102696)
1. Compression forces used in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.
Waade GG; Moshina N; Sebuødegård S; Hogg P; Hofvind S
Br J Radiol; 2017 Mar; 90(1071):20160770. PubMed ID: 28102696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Breast compression across consecutive examinations among females participating in BreastScreen Norway.
Waade GG; Sebuødegård S; Hogg P; Hofvind S
Br J Radiol; 2018 Oct; 91(1090):20180209. PubMed ID: 29927636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Compression force variability in mammography in Ghana - A baseline study.
Dzidzornu E; Angmorterh SK; Ofori-Manteaw BB; Aboagye S; Ofori EK; Owusu-Agyei S; Hogg P
Radiography (Lond); 2021 Feb; 27(1):150-155. PubMed ID: 32741566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Breast compression parameters and mammographic density in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Programme.
Moshina N; Roman M; Waade GG; Sebuødegård S; Ursin G; Hofvind S
Eur Radiol; 2018 Apr; 28(4):1662-1672. PubMed ID: 29098437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening programme (To-Be): a randomised, controlled trial.
Hofvind S; Holen ÅS; Aase HS; Houssami N; Sebuødegård S; Moger TA; Haldorsen IS; Akslen LA
Lancet Oncol; 2019 Jun; 20(6):795-805. PubMed ID: 31078459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Digital breast tomosynthesis in a population based mammographic screening program: Breast compression and early performance measures.
Moshina N; Larsen M; Holen ÅS; Waade GG; Aase HS; Hofvind S
Eur J Radiol; 2021 Jun; 139():109665. PubMed ID: 33823373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial.
Hendrick RE; Pisano ED; Averbukh A; Moran C; Berns EA; Yaffe MJ; Herman B; Acharyya S; Gatsonis C
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Feb; 194(2):362-9. PubMed ID: 20093597
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Self-compression Technique vs Standard Compression in Mammography: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Henrot P; Boisserie-Lacroix M; Boute V; Troufléau P; Boyer B; Lesanne G; Gillon V; Desandes E; Netter E; Saadate M; Tardivon A; Grentzinger C; Salleron J; Oldrini G
JAMA Intern Med; 2019 Mar; 179(3):407-414. PubMed ID: 30715083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The impact of compression force and pressure at prevalent screening on subsequent re-attendance in a national screening program.
Moshina N; Sebuødegård S; Holen ÅS; Waade GG; Tsuruda K; Hofvind S
Prev Med; 2018 Mar; 108():129-136. PubMed ID: 29337068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Mammography image quality and evidence based practice: Analysis of the demonstration of the inframammary angle in the digital setting.
Spuur K; Webb J; Poulos A; Nielsen S; Robinson W
Eur J Radiol; 2018 Mar; 100():76-84. PubMed ID: 29496083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Breast compression and reported pain during mammographic screening.
Moshina N; Sagstad S; Sebuødegård S; Waade GG; Gran E; Music J; Hofvind S
Radiography (Lond); 2020 May; 26(2):133-139. PubMed ID: 32052779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study.
Vigeland E; Klaasen H; Klingen TA; Hofvind S; Skaane P
Eur Radiol; 2008 Jan; 18(1):183-91. PubMed ID: 17680246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography in a population-based screening program: The Sogn and Fjordane study.
Juel IM; Skaane P; Hoff SR; Johannessen G; Hofvind S
Acta Radiol; 2010 Nov; 51(9):962-8. PubMed ID: 20942729
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Breast compression techniques in screening mammography - A Maltese evaluation project.
Cassar Agius E; Naylor S
Radiography (Lond); 2018 Nov; 24(4):309-314. PubMed ID: 30292499
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
