144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38019313)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
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. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. A review of mammographic image quality in Papua New Guinea.
Pape R; Spuur KM; Wilkinson JM; Zuhukepe A
J Med Radiat Sci; 2022 Mar; 69(1):24-29. PubMed ID: 34418330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
