179 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29927636)
41. 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]
42. Is breast compression associated with breast cancer detection and other early performance measures in a population-based breast cancer screening program?
Moshina N; Sebuødegård S; Hofvind S
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Jun; 163(3):605-613. PubMed ID: 28357655
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Does the patient-assisted compression mode affect the mammography quality? A within-woman randomized controlled trial.
Perez-Leon D; Posso M; Louro J; Ejarque B; Arranz M; Arenas N; Maiques J; Martínez J; Maciá F; Román M; Rodríguez-Arana A; Castells X; Alcántara R
Eur Radiol; 2022 Nov; 32(11):7470-7479. PubMed ID: 35536391
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Radiation dose affected by mammographic composition and breast size: first application of a radiation dose management system for full-field digital mammography in Korean women.
Baek JE; Kang BJ; Kim SH; Lee HS
World J Surg Oncol; 2017 Feb; 15(1):38. PubMed ID: 28153022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. 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]
46. 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]
47. Strategies to Increase Cancer Detection: Review of True-Positive and False-Negative Results at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening.
Korhonen KE; Weinstein SP; McDonald ES; Conant EF
Radiographics; 2016; 36(7):1954-1965. PubMed ID: 27715711
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. 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]
49. Breast compression in mammography: pressure distribution patterns.
Dustler M; Andersson I; Brorson H; Fröjd P; Mattsson S; Tingberg A; Zackrisson S; Förnvik D
Acta Radiol; 2012 Nov; 53(9):973-80. PubMed ID: 22949732
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Clinical assessment of a radiolucent cushion for mammography.
Tabar L; Lebovic GS; Hermann GD; Kaufman CS; Alexander C; Sayre J
Acta Radiol; 2004 Apr; 45(2):154-8. PubMed ID: 15191098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. 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]
52. Breast biphasic compression versus standard monophasic compression in X-ray mammography.
Sardanelli F; Zandrino F; Imperiale A; Bonaldo E; Quartini MG; Cogorno N
Radiology; 2000 Nov; 217(2):576-80. PubMed ID: 11058663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Does the use of self-compression in mammography affect compression force, breast thickness, and mean glandular dose?
Alukic E; Bravhar P; Mekis N
Eur J Radiol; 2021 Jun; 139():109694. PubMed ID: 33839429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Dosimetric evaluation of the mean glandular dose for mammography in Korean women: a preliminary report.
Oh KK; Hur J; Kim EK; Choo SS
Yonsei Med J; 2003 Oct; 44(5):863-8. PubMed ID: 14584104
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study.
Bluekens AM; Holland R; Karssemeijer N; Broeders MJ; den Heeten GJ
Radiology; 2012 Dec; 265(3):707-14. PubMed ID: 23033499
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Mammographic compression in Asian women.
Lau S; Abdul Aziz YF; Ng KH
PLoS One; 2017; 12(4):e0175781. PubMed ID: 28419125
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Comprehensive dose survey of breast screening in Ireland.
Baldelli P; McCullagh J; Phelan N; Flanagan F
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Apr; 145(1):52-60. PubMed ID: 21097483
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Investigation of breast dose in five screening mammography centres in Greece.
Tsapaki V; Tsalafoutas IA; Poga V; Louizi A; Kottou S; Koulentianos E
J Radiol Prot; 2008 Sep; 28(3):337-46. PubMed ID: 18714130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Intra-individual comparison of average glandular dose of two digital mammography units using different anode/filter combinations.
Engelken FJ; Meyer H; Juran R; Bick U; Fallenberg E; Diekmann F
Acad Radiol; 2009 Oct; 16(10):1272-80. PubMed ID: 19632866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
