Trial reportEuropean radiology2015
Comparison of a flexible versus a rigid breast compression paddle: pain experience, projected breast area, radiation dose and technical image quality.
Trial report in European radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Self-compression Technique vs Standard Compression in Mammography: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA internal medicine · 2019Trial
- Double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial on the use of paracetamol for performing mammography.Medicine · 2018Trial
- A National Audit of Mammography Systems Settings That May Affect the Output of Artificial Intelligence Software.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Biomechanical and Parenchymal Determinants of Pain Perception During Mammography: Three-Dimensional Biometric Measurements and the Need for Personalized Compression.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Patient Preference and Adherence in Mammography Screening: A Narrative Review.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Review
- To what extent are objectively measured mammographic imaging techniques associated with compression outcomes.The British journal of radiology · 2023Article
- The Effect of Breast Size and Density in Turkish Women on Radiation Dose in Full-Field Digital Mammography.European journal of breast health · 2021Article
- Quantitative Breast Density in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Influence of Discomfort Tolerance of Women who Undergo Mammography on the Perceived Pain Intensity Due to the Procedure.European journal of breast health · 2021Article
- A review of mammographic positioning image quality criteria for the craniocaudal projection.The British journal of radiology · 2018Review
- The compressed breast during mammography and breast tomosynthesis: in vivo shape characterization and modeling.Physics in medicine and biology · 2017Article
- European radiographers' challenges from mammography education and clinical practice - an integrative review.Insights into imaging · 2017Article
- Compression forces used in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.The British journal of radiology · 2017Article
- Mammographic compression in Asian women.PloS one · 2017Article
- Keloid Formation due to Repetitive Mammographies.Case reports in dermatologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare pain, projected breast area, radiation dose and image quality between flexible (FP) and rigid (RP) breast compression paddles.
methodsThe study was conducted in a Dutch mammographic screening unit (288 women). To compare both paddles one additional image with RP was made, consisting of either a mediolateral-oblique (MLO) or craniocaudal-view (CC). Pain experience was scored using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Projected breast area was estimated using computer software. Radiation dose was estimated using the model by Dance. Image quality was reviewed by three radiologists and three radiographers.
resultsThere was no difference in pain experience between both paddles (mean difference NRS: 0.08 ± 0.08, p = 0.32). Mean radiation dose was 4.5 % lower with FP (0.09 ± 0.01 p = 0.00). On MLO-images, the projected breast area was 0.79 % larger with FP. Paired evaluation of image quality indicated that FP removed fibroglandular tissue from the image area and reduced contrast in the clinically relevant retroglandular area at chest wall side.
conclusionsAlthough FP performed slightly better in the projected breast area, it moved breast tissue from the image area at chest wall side. RP showed better contrast, especially in the retroglandular area. We therefore recommend the use of RP for standard MLO and CC views.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.