139 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10665871)
1. Effect on sensitivity and specificity of mammography screening with or without comparison of old mammograms.
Thurfjell MG; Vitak B; Azavedo E; Svane G; Thurfjell E
Acta Radiol; 2000 Jan; 41(1):52-6. PubMed ID: 10665871
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Mammography screening methods and diagnostic results.
Thurfjell E
Acta Radiol Suppl; 1995; 395():1-22. PubMed ID: 7839866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Sensitivity and specificity of computer-assisted breast cancer detection in mammography screening.
Thurfjell E; Thurfjell MG; Egge E; Bjurstam N
Acta Radiol; 1998 Jul; 39(4):384-8. PubMed ID: 9685824
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Aspects in mammographic screening. Detection, prediction, recurrence and prognosis.
Thurfjell MG
Acta Radiol Suppl; 2001 Dec; 42(424):1-22. PubMed ID: 12040855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography.
Warren Burhenne LJ; Wood SA; D'Orsi CJ; Feig SA; Kopans DB; O'Shaughnessy KF; Sickles EA; Tabar L; Vyborny CJ; Castellino RA
Radiology; 2000 May; 215(2):554-62. PubMed ID: 10796939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy.
Smith-Bindman R; Chu P; Miglioretti DL; Quale C; Rosenberg RD; Cutter G; Geller B; Bacchetti P; Sickles EA; Kerlikowske K
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2005 Mar; 97(5):358-67. PubMed ID: 15741572
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Mammography screening. One versus two views and independent double reading.
Thurfjell E
Acta Radiol; 1994 Jul; 35(4):345-50. PubMed ID: 8011383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effect of observing change from comparison mammograms on performance of screening mammography in a large community-based population.
Yankaskas BC; May RC; Matuszewski J; Bowling JM; Jarman MP; Schroeder BF
Radiology; 2011 Dec; 261(3):762-70. PubMed ID: 22031709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Evidence-based target recall rates for screening mammography.
Schell MJ; Yankaskas BC; Ballard-Barbash R; Qaqish BF; Barlow WE; Rosenberg RD; Smith-Bindman R
Radiology; 2007 Jun; 243(3):681-9. PubMed ID: 17517927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Minimizing misclassification of hormone users at mammography screening.
Njor SH; Pedersen AT; Schwartz W; Hallas J; Lynge E
Int J Cancer; 2009 May; 124(9):2159-65. PubMed ID: 19132752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Importance of comparison of current and prior mammograms in breast cancer screening.
Roelofs AA; Karssemeijer N; Wedekind N; Beck C; van Woudenberg S; Snoeren PR; Hendriks JH; Rosselli del Turco M; Bjurstam N; Junkermann H; Beijerinck D; Séradour B; Evertsz CJ
Radiology; 2007 Jan; 242(1):70-7. PubMed ID: 17185661
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: report on the first 4 years of mammography provided to medically underserved women.
May DS; Lee NC; Nadel MR; Henson RM; Miller DS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Jan; 170(1):97-104. PubMed ID: 9423608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [Assessment of diagnostic accuracy of mammography carried out for secondary prevention. Results of a test with a sample caseload conducted by 75 Italian radiologists].
Morrone D; Giorgi D; Ciatto S; Frigerio A; Catarzi S; Rosselli Del Turco M
Radiol Med; 2001; 101(1-2):44-7. PubMed ID: 11360752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Breast carcinoma diagnosed in mammographic screening incidentally. Research on the radiologic signs in prior mammograms].
Marra V; Frigerio A; Di Virgilio MR; Menna S; Burke P
Radiol Med; 1999 Nov; 98(5):342-6. PubMed ID: 10780212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program.
Thurfjell EL; Lernevall KA; Taube AA
Radiology; 1994 Apr; 191(1):241-4. PubMed ID: 8134580
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Optimal reference mammography: a comparison of mammograms obtained 1 and 2 years before the present examination.
Sumkin JH; Holbert BL; Herrmann JS; Hakim CA; Ganott MA; Poller WR; Shah R; Hardesty LA; Gur D
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2003 Feb; 180(2):343-6. PubMed ID: 12540430
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effect of age and breast density on screening mammograms with false-positive findings.
Lehman CD; White E; Peacock S; Drucker MJ; Urban N
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1999 Dec; 173(6):1651-5. PubMed ID: 10584815
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Screening mammography: value in women 35-39 years old.
Liberman L; Dershaw DD; Deutch BM; Thaler HT; Lippin BS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1993 Jul; 161(1):53-6. PubMed ID: 8517320
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A true screening environment for review of interval breast cancers: pilot study to reduce bias.
Gordon PB; Borugian MJ; Warren Burhenne LJ
Radiology; 2007 Nov; 245(2):411-5. PubMed ID: 17848684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: a prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands.
Klompenhouwer EG; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Strobbe LJ; de Haan AF; Wauters CA; Broeders MJ; Duijm LE
Eur J Cancer; 2015 Feb; 51(3):391-9. PubMed ID: 25573788
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
