Hansford B.G. Silbermann R.

Advanced imaging of multiple myeloma bone disease.

Front Endocrinol. 2018; 9: 436

Myeloma statistics.

2017 ([online] available from)Ashcroft J. Cook G. Henshaw S. Jackson G. Jenner M. Pemberton-Whiteley Z. et al.

State of the nation in multiple myeloma - a UK perspective.

Amgen, London2016

Haematological Malignancy Research Network (n.d.) Incidence statistics: Disease-specific incidence [online] available from <https://hmrn.org/statistics/incidence> [07 June 2021].

Whole-body imaging in multiple myeloma.

Magn Reson Imag Clin. 2018; 26: 509-525Minarik J. Krhovska P. Hrbek J. Pika T. Bacovsky J. Herman M. et al.

Prospective comparison of conventional radiography, low-dose computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in monoclonal gammopathies.

Biomed Pap. 2016; 160: 305-309Rajkumar S.V. Dimopoulos M.A. Palumbo A. Blade J. Merlini G. Mateos M. et al.

International myeloma working group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma.

Lancet Oncol. 2014; 15: e538-e548NICE - National Collaborating Centre for Cancer

Myeloma: diagnosis and management. (NICE Guideline 35).

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London2016Chantry A. Kazmi M. Barrington S. Goh V. Mulholland N. Streetly M. et al.

Guidelines for the use of imaging in the management of patients with myeloma.

Br J Haematol. 2017; 178: 380-393Hillengass J. Usmani S. Rajkumar S.V. Durie B.G.M. Mateos M. Lonial S. et al.

International myeloma working group consensus recommendations on imaging in monoclonal plasma cell disorders.

Lancet Oncol. 2019; 20: e302-e312Ippolito D. Besostri V. Bonaffini P.A. Rossini F. Di Lelio A. Sironi S.

Diagnostic value of whole-body low-dose computed tomography (WBLDCT) in bone lesions detection in patients with multiple myeloma (MM)'.

Eur J Radiol. 2013; 82: 2322-2327Wolf M.B. Murray F. Kilk K. Hillengass J. Delorme S. Heiss C. et al.

Sensitivity of whole-body CT and MRI versus projection radiography in the detection of osteolyses in patients with monoclonal plasma cell disease.

Eur J Radiol. 2014; 83: 1222-1230Hillengass J. Moulopoulos L.A. Delorme S. Koutoulidis V. Mosebach J. Hielscher T. et al.

Whole-body computed tomography versus conventional skeletal survey in patients with multiple myeloma: a study of the international myeloma working group.

Blood Canc J. 2017; 7: 599

Multiple myeloma: the patient's perspective.

Can Oncol Nurs J. 2008; 18: 141-151

Multiple myeloma: the patient's journey through survivorship.

ONS Connect. 2012; : 3-4Hauksdóttir B. Klinke M.E. Gunnarsdóttir S. Björnsdóttir K.

Patients' experiences with multiple myeloma.

Meta-Aggregation Qual Stud. 2017; 44: 64-81

Understanding the humanistic interaction with medical imaging technology.

Radiography. 2001; 7: 193-201Evans R.E. Taylor S.A. Beare S. Halligan S. Morton A. Oliver A. et al.

Perceived patient burden and acceptability of whole body MRI for staging lung and colorectal cancer; comparison with standard staging investigations'.

Br J Radiol. 2018; 91: 20170731

The patient experience of high technology medical imaging: a systematic review of the qualitative evidence.

Radiography. 2011; 17: 323-331Adams H.J. Kwee T.C. Vermoolen M.A. Ludwig I. Bierings M.B. Nievelstein R.A.

Whole-body MRI vs. CT for staging lymphoma: patient experience.

Eur J Radiol. 2014; 83: 163-166Evans R. Taylor S. Janes S. Halligan S. Morton A. Navani N. et al.

Patient experience and perceived acceptability of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for staging colorectal and lung cancer compared with current staging scans: a qualitative study.

BMJ Open. 2017; 7e016391Oliveri S. Pricolo P. Pizzoli S. Faccio F. Lampis V. Summers P. et al.

Investigating cancer patient Acceptance of whole body MRI.

Clin Imag. 2018; 52: 246-251Heyer C.M. Thüring J. Lemburg S.P. Kreddig N. Hasenbring M. Dohna M. et al.

Anxiety of patients undergoing CT imaging—an underestimated problem?.

Acad Radiol. 2015; 22: 105-112

Patient engagement, always events and the future.

Imaging Oncol. 2020; : 60-67

Personalised care – rethinking medicine for the 21st century.

Imaging Oncol. 2020; : 72-75Schönenberger E. Schnapauff D. Teige F. Laule M. Hamm B. Dewey M.

Patient Acceptance of noninvasive and invasive coronary angiography.

PloS One. 2007; 2: e246Feger S. Rief M. Zimmermann E. Richter F. Roehle R. Dewey M. et al.

Patient satisfaction with coronary CT angiography, myocardial CT perfusion, myocardial perfusion MRI, SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging and conventional coronary angiography.

Eur Radiol. 2015; 25: 2115-2124Rief M. Feger S. Martus P. Laule M. Dewey M. Schönenberger E.

Acceptance of combined coronary CT angiography and myocardial CT perfusion versus conventional coronary angiography in patients with coronary stents—intraindividual comparison'.

PloS One. 2015; 10e0136737Salmon P. Shah R. Berg S. Williams C.

Evaluating customer satisfaction with colonoscopy.

Endoscopy. 1994; 26: 342-346von Wagner C. Smith S. Halligan S. Ghanouni A. Power E. Lilford R.J. et al.

Patient Acceptability of CT colonography compared with double contrast barium enema: results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial of symptomatic patients.

Eur Radiol. 2011; 21: 2046-2055Hulley S.B. Cummings S.R. Browner W.S. Grady D.G. Newman T.B.

Designing clinical research.

4th ed. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia2013

Research methods in health : investigating health and health services.

4th ed. McGraw-Hill Education, Maidenhead2014

Quality of life.

Wiley Blackwell, Chichester2016Harrington S.E. Gilchrist L. Lee J. Westlake F.L. Baker A.

Oncology section edge task force on cancer: a systematic review of clinical measures for pain.

Rehab Oncol. 2018; 36: 83-92Stull D.E. Leidy N.K. Parasuraman B. Chassany O.

Optimal recall periods for patient-reported outcomes: challenges and potential solutions.

Curr Med Res Opin. 2009; 25: 929-942Faul F. Erdfelder E. Buchner A. Lang A.

Statistical power analyses using GPower 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses.

Behav Res Methods. 2009; 41: 1149-1160

A power primer.

Psychol Bull. 1992; 112: 155

On sample size of the Kruskal–Wallis test with application to a mouse peritoneal cavity study.

Biometrics. 2011; 67: 213-224

Handbook of biological statistics.

3rd ed. Sparky House Publishing, Baltimore, Maryland2014

Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics.

5th ed. Sage Publications Ltd, London2018

Using thematic analysis in psychology.

Qual Res Psychol. 2006; 3: 77-101Bradshaw C. Atkinson S. Doody O.

Employing a qualitative description approach in health care research.

Global Qual Nurs Res. 2017; 4 (2333393617742282)

Establishing rigour in qualitative radiography research.

Radiography. 2010; 16: 62-67Woolen S. Kazerooni E.A. Wall A. Parent K. Cahalan S. Alameddine M. et al.

Waiting for radiology test results: patient expectations and emotional disutility.

J Am Coll Radiol. 2018; 15: 274-281Brown R.K. Petty S. O'Malley S. Stojanovska J. Davenport M.S. Kazerooni E.A. et al.

Virtual reality tool simulates MRI experience.

Tomography. 2018; 4: 95-98

Personalised care operating model.

2018 ([online] available from)

Patient centred care in diagnostic radiography (Part 1): perceptions of service users and service deliverers.

Radiography. 2021; 27: 8-13

Patient centred care in diagnostic radiography (Part 2): a qualitative study of the perceptions of service users and service deliverers.

Radiography. 2021; (Article in Press)Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) equipment, operations and planning in the NHS report from the clinical imaging board.

Clinical Imaging Board, London2017Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine

CT equipment, operations, capacity and planning in the NHS.

Clinical Imaging Board, London2015

The evolving field of bone imaging in multiple myeloma: is it time to abandon skeletal surveys?.

Curr Oncol. 2020; 27: 10-11King A.J. Gooding S. Ramasamy K.

Managing multiple myeloma in the over 70s: a review.

Maturitas. 2015; 80: 148-154