ArticleThe British journal of radiology2016
Analysis of motion during the breast clamping phase of mammography.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Technical feasibility of automated blur detection in digital mammography using convolutional neural network.European radiology experimental · 2024Article
- Is it blur or is it texture? An analysis of computational blur and texture measures commonly used in medical image analysis.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2023Article
- The impact of simulated motion blur on lesion detection performance in full-field digital mammography.The British journal of radiology · 2017Article
- Blurred digital mammography images: an analysis of technical recall and observer detection performance.The British journal of radiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo measure paddle motion during the clamping phase of a breast phantom for a range of machine/paddle combinations.
methodsA deformable breast phantom was used to simulate a female breast. 12 mammography machines from three manufacturers with 22 flexible and 20 fixed paddles were evaluated. Vertical motion at the paddle was measured using two calibrated linear potentiometers. For each paddle, the motion in millimetres was recorded every 0.5 s for 40 s, while the phantom was compressed with 80 N. Independent t-tests were used to determine differences in paddle motion between flexible and fixed, small and large, GE Senographe Essential (General Electric Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI) and Hologic Selenia Dimensions paddles (Hologic, Bedford, MA). Paddle tilt in the medial-lateral plane for each machine/paddle combination was calculated.
resultsAll machine/paddle combinations demonstrate highest levels of motion during the first 10 s of the clamping phase. The least motion is 0.17 ± 0.05 mm/10 s (n = 20) and the most motion is 0.51 ± 0.15 mm/10 s (n = 80). There is a statistical difference in paddle motion between fixed and flexible (p < 0.001), GE Senographe Essential and Hologic Selenia Dimensions paddles (p < 0.001). Paddle tilt in the medial-lateral plane is independent of time and varied from 0.04 ° to 0.69 °.
conclusionAll machine/paddle combinations exhibited motion and tilting, and the extent varied with machine and paddle sizes and types. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This research suggests that image blurring will likely be clinically insignificant 4 s or more after the clamping phase commences.
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.