You should describe how you searched for your articles.
Students will develop a research paper based on a current trend healthcare, radiologic sciences, education or administration. This topic must be approved by faculty. Your paper is expected to be written in a formal style using correct APA format, grammar, and spelling. Papers should be a minimum of 10 pages (not including the title page, abstract and references), but should not exceed 20. A minimum of 10 peer reviewed references should be used. Students will use Turnitin to determine if any plagiarism exists in the paper. Turnitin is web-based plagiarism detection software that compares the submitted paper with current and archived web pages, millions of student papers worldwide, and collections of newspapers, magazines, scholarly journals, e-Books and e-Texts. Turnitin will generate a similarity report for review. Click on the generated percent to view report. Once the document viewer opens, click on “exclude quoted” and “exclude bibliography” to narrow the matches of the paper and display a true percent of original writing in the paper. You will revise your paper based on the similarity report. A paper will not be accepted above a 15% similarity report. You may submit their paper multiple times to Turnitin until your paper is below 15%. The final copy after revising any unintended plagiarism is to be submitted for grading. Your paper should include the following components: Title page (See APA manual.) Abstract Introduction-The APA manual has good information on what to include in the introduction. Methods-In this section, you should describe how you searched for your articles. You should include what databases you searched, what search terms you used, whether you had to expand or narrow your search, and how you chose what articles to include. Discussion-This should be the largest portion of your paper. It should be a synthesis and analysis of your sources. It should not merely be a description of what was included in each article. Conclusion-This section should be a summary of your paper. Depending on your topic you might also include recommendations for practice, recommendations for future research, and/or implications for practice. *Note: The introduction, methods, discussion, and conclusion sections should be a minimum of 10 pages. References-see APA for details regarding formatting. You will have a minimum of 10 peer reviewed sources. You should use headings to organize your paper. The headings you use will depend on your topic. See the APA manual for details about how to use headings and levels of headings.
paper references needs to be in APA 7th edition
These are the correctly cited references you have to use. You can also use some additional ones.
Advances in Technology. (n.d.). Retrieved September 29, 2020, from http://content.ebscohost.
Bian, T., Lin, Q., Cui, C., Li, L., Qi, C., Fei, J., & Su, X. (2016). Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A New Diagnostic Method for Mass-Like Lesions in Dense Breasts. The Breast Journal, 22(5), 535–540. https://doi.org/10.
Cai, S., Yao, M., Cai, D., Yan, J., Huang, M., Yan, L., & Huang, H. (2019). Association between digital breast tomosynthesis and molecular subtypes of breast cancer. Oncology Letters. https://doi.org/10.
Dibble, E. H., Lourenco, A. P., Baird, G. L., Ward, R. C., Maynard, A. S., & Mainiero, M. B. (2017). Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of architectural distortion. European Radiology, 28(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Förnvik, D., Kataoka, M., Iima, M., Ohashi, A., Kanao, S., Toi, M., & Togashi, K. (2018). The role of breast tomosynthesis in a predominantly dense breast population at a tertiary breast centre: breast density assessment and diagnostic performance in comparison with MRI. European Radiology, 28(8), 3194–3203. https://doi.org/10.
Gennaro, G., Bernardi, D., & Houssami, N. (2017). Radiation dose with digital breast tomosynthesis compared to digital mammography: per-view analysis. European Radiology, 28(2), 573–581. https://doi.org/10.
Kisielewicz, K., Rawojć, K., Dziubińska, A., Mazur, L., Kiełtyka, B., Najberg-Pierzchała, D., Gądek, M., Łuczyńska, E., Woś, Z., Heinze, S., & Dziecichowicz, A. (2020). Patient Dose Evaluation in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. Acta Physica Polonica B, 51(1), 345. https://doi.org/10.5506/
Mall, S., Noakes, J., Kossoff, M., Lee, W., McKessar, M., Goy, A., Duncombe, J., Roberts, M., Giuffre, B., Miller, A., Bhola, N., Kapoor, C., Shearman, C., DaCosta, G., Choi, S., Sterba, J., Kay, M., Bruderlin, K., Winarta, N., … Mello-Thoms, C. (2018). Can digital breast tomosynthesis perform better than standard digital mammography work-up in breast cancer assessment clinic? European Radiology, 28(12), 5182–5194. https://doi.org/10.
Ray, K. M., Turner, E., Sickles, E. A., & Joe, B. N. (2015). Suspicious Findings at Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Occult to Conventional Digital Mammography: Imaging Features and Pathology Findings. The Breast Journal, 21(5), 538–542. https://doi.org/10.
Wang, W.-S., Hardesty, L., Borgstede, J., Takahashi, J., & Sams, S. (2016). Breast Cancers Found with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: A Comparison of Pathology and Histologic Grade. The Breast Journal, 22(6), 651–656. https://doi.org/10.
Image preview for you should describe how you searched for your articles.