179 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29927636)
21. 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]
22. 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]
23. 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]
24. Trends in patient dose and compression force for digital (DR) mammography systems over an eleven-year period.
Ramnarain J; Cartwright L; Diffey J
Phys Eng Sci Med; 2024 Mar; 47(1):215-222. PubMed ID: 38019445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Is Individualizing Breast Compression during Mammography useful? - Investigations of pain indications during mammography relating to compression force and surface area of the compressed breast.
Feder K; Grunert JH
Rofo; 2017 Jan; 189(1):39-48. PubMed ID: 28002858
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. Dose management software implementation in mammography.
Samara ET; Tsapaki V; Sramek D
Phys Med; 2019 Dec; 68():88-95. PubMed ID: 31765886
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. Glandular doses and diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) for Saudi breast cancer screening programme (2012-2021).
Albeshan SM; Alhulail AA; Almuqbil MM
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2024 Apr; 200(5):467-472. PubMed ID: 38324508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Compression in mammography and the perception of discomfort.
Poulos A; Rickard M
Australas Radiol; 1997 Aug; 41(3):247-52. PubMed ID: 9293675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. Influence of breast compression pressure on the performance of population-based mammography screening.
Holland K; Sechopoulos I; Mann RM; den Heeten GJ; van Gils CH; Karssemeijer N
Breast Cancer Res; 2017 Nov; 19(1):126. PubMed ID: 29183348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Pressure-standardised mammography does not affect visibility, contrast and sharpness of stable lesions.
de Groot JE; Hopman IGM; van Lier MGJTB; Branderhorst W; Grimbergen CA; den Heeten GJ
Eur J Radiol; 2017 Jan; 86():289-295. PubMed ID: 28027762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Intra- and inter-rater reliability of compressed breast thickness, applied force, and pressure distribution in screening mammography.
Voigt M; Bolejko A; Dustler M
Acta Radiol Open; 2021 Dec; 10(12):20584601211062078. PubMed ID: 35140983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. 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]
36. 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]
37. Patient-centred care with self-compression mammography in clinical practice: a randomized trial compared to standard compression.
Iotti V; Giorgi Rossi P; Canovi L; Guberti M; Nitrosi A; Lippolis DG; Marchesi V; Besutti G; Ottone M; Vacondio R; Pattacini P;
Eur Radiol; 2023 Jan; 33(1):450-460. PubMed ID: 35869315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Reduced compression mammography to reduce breast pain.
Chida K; Komatsu Y; Sai M; Nakagami A; Yamada T; Yamashita T; Mori I; Ishibashi T; Maruoka S; Zuguchi M
Clin Imaging; 2009; 33(1):7-10. PubMed ID: 19135922
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Screening at stationary versus mobile units in BreastScreen Norway.
Holen Å; Sebuødegård S; Waade GG; Aase H; Hopland NM; Pedersen K; Larsen M; Tsuruda KM; Hofvind S
J Med Screen; 2020 Mar; 27(1):31-39. PubMed ID: 31554445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
