Создание развитых интернет-программ на примере построения виджет-программ

Рассмотрено применение методологии создания развитых Интернет-программ на основе Adobe Flex 2.0 с применением паттернов проектирования и архитектурного каркаса. Подход проиллюстрирован построением виджет-программ

Comparison of a flexible versus a rigid breast compression paddle: pain experience, projected breast area, radiation dose and technical image quality

To compare pain, projected breast area, radiation dose and image quality between flexible (FP) and rigid (RP) breast compression paddles. The 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. There 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. Although 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 view

Surgical repair of distal biceps tendon ruptures : a biomechanical comparison of two techniques

PURPOSE: To compare pain, projected breast area, radiation dose and image quality between flexible (FP) and rigid (RP) breast compression paddles. METHODS: The 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. Results : There 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. CONCLUSIONS: Although 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