157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32246276)
1. Consensus about image quality assessment criteria of breast implants mammography using Delphi method with radiographers and radiologists.
Sá Dos Reis C; Gremion I; Richli Meystre N
Insights Imaging; 2020 Apr; 11(1):56. PubMed ID: 32246276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Study of breast implants mammography examinations for identification of suitable image quality criteria.
Sá Dos Reis C; Gremion I; Richli Meystre N
Insights Imaging; 2020 Jan; 11(1):3. PubMed ID: 31900684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Using breast radiographers' reports as a second opinion for radiologists' readings of microcalcifications in digital mammography.
Tanaka R; Takamori M; Uchiyama Y; Nishikawa RM; Shiraishi J
Br J Radiol; 2015 Mar; 88(1047):20140565. PubMed ID: 25536443
[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. 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]
6. The impact of subjective image quality evaluation in mammography.
Alukić E; Homar K; Pavić M; Žibert J; Mekiš N
Radiography (Lond); 2023 May; 29(3):526-532. PubMed ID: 36913787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. A self-directed learning intervention for radiographers rating mammographic breast density.
Ekpo EU; Hogg P; Wasike E; McEntee MF
Radiography (Lond); 2017 Nov; 23(4):337-342. PubMed ID: 28965898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Mammography equipment design: impact on radiographers' practice.
Costa S; Oliveira E; Reis C; Viegas S; Serranheira F
Insights Imaging; 2014 Dec; 5(6):723-30. PubMed ID: 25272950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Are All Views with and without Displacement Maneuver Necessary in Augmentation Mammography? Putting Numbers Into Perspective.
Couto LS; Freitas-Junior R; Corrêa RS; Lauar MV; Bauab SP; Urban LABD; Cruvinel-Filho JLO; Soares LR; Savaris RF
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2022 Jan; 23(1):233-239. PubMed ID: 35092393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Radiographers supporting radiologists in the interpretation of screening mammography: a viable strategy to meet the shortage in the number of radiologists.
Torres-Mejía G; Smith RA; Carranza-Flores Mde L; Bogart A; Martínez-Matsushita L; Miglioretti DL; Kerlikowske K; Ortega-Olvera C; Montemayor-Varela E; Angeles-Llerenas A; Bautista-Arredondo S; Sánchez-González G; Martínez-Montañez OG; Uscanga-Sánchez SR; Lazcano-Ponce E; Hernández-Ávila M
BMC Cancer; 2015 May; 15():410. PubMed ID: 25975383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. An investigation of radiographers' and radiologists' perceptions and attitudes in Kuwait towards extending radiographers' role in mammography.
Muhanna AM; Brown PN; Pratt S
Radiography (Lond); 2022 May; 28(2):325-332. PubMed ID: 34782216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. European radiographers' challenges from mammography education and clinical practice - an integrative review.
Metsälä E; Richli Meystre N; Pires Jorge J; Henner A; Kukkes T; Sá Dos Reis C
Insights Imaging; 2017 Jun; 8(3):329-343. PubMed ID: 28303552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Using automated software evaluation to improve the performance of breast radiographers in tomosynthesis screening.
Gennaro G; Povolo L; Del Genio S; Ciampani L; Fasoli C; Carlevaris P; Petrioli M; Masiero T; Maggetto F; Caumo F
Eur Radiol; 2023 Nov; ():. PubMed ID: 38019313
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Ergonomic strategies to improve radiographers' posture during mammography activities.
Cernean N; Serranheira F; Gonçalves P; Sá Dos Reis C
Insights Imaging; 2017 Aug; 8(4):429-438. PubMed ID: 28639113
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. [Tailored Breast Screening Trial (TBST)].
Paci E; Mantellini P; Giorgi Rossi P; Falini P; Puliti D;
Epidemiol Prev; 2013; 37(4-5):317-27. PubMed ID: 24293498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Understanding Clinical Mammographic Breast Density Assessment: a Deep Learning Perspective.
Mohamed AA; Luo Y; Peng H; Jankowitz RC; Wu S
J Digit Imaging; 2018 Aug; 31(4):387-392. PubMed ID: 28932980
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
