643 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29311416)
1. 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]
2. Single Center Evaluation of Comparative Breast Radiation dose of Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM), Digital Mammography (DM) and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT).
Bicchierai G; Busoni S; Tortoli P; Bettarini S; Naro FD; De Benedetto D; Savi E; Bellini C; Miele V; Nori J
Acad Radiol; 2022 Sep; 29(9):1342-1349. PubMed ID: 35065889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Evaluation of average glandular dose (AGD) in screening and diagnostic digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) towards establishing a reference dose range band (DRB): a developing country experience.
Jeyasugiththan J; Maheshika Bandara BGU; Wickramarathna SHD; Thenuwara H; Satharasinghe D; Pallewatte AS; Hettiarachchi P
J Radiol Prot; 2023 Jul; 43(3):. PubMed ID: 37463573
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Radiation exposure of digital breast tomosynthesis using an antiscatter grid compared with full-field digital mammography.
Paulis LE; Lobbes MB; Lalji UC; Gelissen N; Bouwman RW; Wildberger JE; Jeukens CR
Invest Radiol; 2015 Oct; 50(10):679-85. PubMed ID: 26011823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparative evaluation of average glandular dose and breast cancer detection between single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus single-view digital mammography (DM) and two-view DM: correlation with breast thickness and density.
Shin SU; Chang JM; Bae MS; Lee SH; Cho N; Seo M; Kim WH; Moon WK
Eur Radiol; 2015 Jan; 25(1):1-8. PubMed ID: 25182628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Automated Breast Density Computation in Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Influence on Mean Glandular Dose and BIRADS Density Categorization.
Castillo-García M; Chevalier M; Garayoa J; Rodriguez-Ruiz A; García-Pinto D; Valverde J
Acad Radiol; 2017 Jul; 24(7):802-810. PubMed ID: 28214227
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Average glandular dose in digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis.
Olgar T; Kahn T; Gosch D
Rofo; 2012 Oct; 184(10):911-8. PubMed ID: 22711250
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The effect of different exposure parameters on radiation dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: A phantom study.
Asbeutah AM; Brindhaban A; AlMajran AA; Asbeutah SA
Radiography (Lond); 2020 Aug; 26(3):e129-e133. PubMed ID: 32052759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Patient dose in digital mammography.
Chevalier M; Morán P; Ten JI; Fernández Soto JM; Cepeda T; Vañó E
Med Phys; 2004 Sep; 31(9):2471-9. PubMed ID: 15487727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Evaluation of average glandular dose and investigation of the relationship with compressed breast thickness in dual energy contrast enhanced digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
Fusco R; Raiano N; Raiano C; Maio F; Vallone P; Mattace Raso M; Setola SV; Granata V; Rubulotta MR; Barretta ML; Petrosino T; Petrillo A
Eur J Radiol; 2020 May; 126():108912. PubMed ID: 32151787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Comparison of radiation doses between diagnostic full-field digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a clinical study.
Asbeutah AM; AlMajran AA; Brindhaban A; Asbeutah SA
J Med Radiat Sci; 2020 Sep; 67(3):185-192. PubMed ID: 32495513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A randomized controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in population-based screening in Bergen: interim analysis of performance indicators from the To-Be trial.
Aase HS; Holen ÅS; Pedersen K; Houssami N; Haldorsen IS; Sebuødegård S; Hanestad B; Hofvind S
Eur Radiol; 2019 Mar; 29(3):1175-1186. PubMed ID: 30159620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 'In vivo' average glandular dose evaluation: one-to-one comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography.
Cavagnetto F; Taccini G; Rosasco R; Bampi R; Calabrese M; Tagliafico A
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2013 Nov; 157(1):53-61. PubMed ID: 23734057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Dose assessment in contrast enhanced digital mammography using simple phantoms simulating standard model breasts.
Bouwman RW; van Engen RE; Young KC; Veldkamp WJ; Dance DR
Phys Med Biol; 2015 Jan; 60(1):N1-7. PubMed ID: 25500435
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Breast Radiation Dose With CESM Compared With 2D FFDM and 3D Tomosynthesis Mammography.
James JR; Pavlicek W; Hanson JA; Boltz TF; Patel BK
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Feb; 208(2):362-372. PubMed ID: 28112559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Screening Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography in Community Practice by Patient Age, Screening Round, and Breast Density.
Lowry KP; Coley RY; Miglioretti DL; Kerlikowske K; Henderson LM; Onega T; Sprague BL; Lee JM; Herschorn S; Tosteson ANA; Rauscher G; Lee CI
JAMA Netw Open; 2020 Jul; 3(7):e2011792. PubMed ID: 32721031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Digital Mammography versus Breast Tomosynthesis: Impact of Breast Density on Diagnostic Performance in Population-based Screening.
Østerås BH; Martinsen ACT; Gullien R; Skaane P
Radiology; 2019 Oct; 293(1):60-68. PubMed ID: 31407968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Assessment of the uterine dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis.
Cepeda Martins AR; Di Maria S; Afonso J; Pereira M; Pereira J; Vaz P
Radiography (Lond); 2022 May; 28(2):333-339. PubMed ID: 34565679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
