These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10807143)
1. Improving the detection of cancer in the screening of mammograms. Laming D; Warren R J Med Screen; 2000; 7(1):24-30. PubMed ID: 10807143 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates. Elmore JG; Miglioretti DL; Reisch LM; Barton MB; Kreuter W; Christiansen CL; Fletcher SW J Natl Cancer Inst; 2002 Sep; 94(18):1373-80. PubMed ID: 12237283 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A blind review and an informed review of interval breast cancer cases in the Limburg screening programme, the Netherlands. de Rijke JM; Schouten LJ; Schreutelkamp JL; Jochem I; Verbeek AL J Med Screen; 2000; 7(1):19-23. PubMed ID: 10807142 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Radiologist interpretive volume and breast cancer screening accuracy in a Canadian organized screening program. Théberge I; Chang SL; Vandal N; Daigle JM; Guertin MH; Pelletier E; Brisson J J Natl Cancer Inst; 2014 Mar; 106(3):djt461. PubMed ID: 24598715 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Organized breast screening programs in Canada: effect of radiologist reading volumes on outcomes. Coldman AJ; Major D; Doyle GP; D'yachkova Y; Phillips N; Onysko J; Shumak R; Smith NE; Wadden N Radiology; 2006 Mar; 238(3):809-15. PubMed ID: 16424236 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. Kan L; Olivotto IA; Warren Burhenne LJ; Sickles EA; Coldman AJ Radiology; 2000 May; 215(2):563-7. PubMed ID: 10796940 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation. Beam CA; Conant EF; Sickles EA J Natl Cancer Inst; 2003 Feb; 95(4):282-90. PubMed ID: 12591984 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Additional double reading of screening mammograms by radiologic technologists: impact on screening performance parameters. Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; de Koning HJ J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Aug; 99(15):1162-70. PubMed ID: 17652282 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. "Memory effect" in observer performance studies of mammograms. Hardesty LA; Ganott MA; Hakim CM; Cohen CS; Clearfield RJ; Gur D Acad Radiol; 2005 Mar; 12(3):286-90. PubMed ID: 15766687 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Variation in false-positive rates of mammography reading among 1067 radiologists: a population-based assessment. Tan A; Freeman DH; Goodwin JS; Freeman JL Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2006 Dec; 100(3):309-18. PubMed ID: 16819566 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Can radiographers read screening mammograms? Wivell G; Denton ER; Eve CB; Inglis JC; Harvey I Clin Radiol; 2003 Jan; 58(1):63-7. PubMed ID: 12565207 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Diagnostic performance of breast technologists in reading mammograms in a clinical patient population. van den Biggelaar FJ; Kessels AG; van Engelshoven JM; Flobbe K Int J Clin Pract; 2010 Mar; 64(4):442-50. PubMed ID: 20456190 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Introduction of additional double reading of mammograms by radiographers: effects on a biennial screening programme outcome. Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; van Ineveld BM; Roumen RM; de Koning HJ Eur J Cancer; 2008 Jun; 44(9):1223-8. PubMed ID: 18400488 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Computer aids and human second reading as interventions in screening mammography: two systematic reviews to compare effects on cancer detection and recall rate. Taylor P; Potts HW Eur J Cancer; 2008 Apr; 44(6):798-807. PubMed ID: 18353630 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Quality assessment of the mammographic screening programme in the Azienda Sanitaria locale Provincia Milano 1 -- analysis of interval cancers and discussion of possible causes of diagnostic error. Burani R; Caimi F; Maggioni C; Marinoni G; Pellizzoni R; Pirola ME; Villa R; Ciatto S Radiol Med; 2005 Mar; 109(3):260-7. PubMed ID: 15775895 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Single reading with computer-aided detection performed by selected radiologists in a breast cancer screening program. Bargalló X; Santamaría G; Del Amo M; Arguis P; Ríos J; Grau J; Burrel M; Cores E; Velasco M Eur J Radiol; 2014 Nov; 83(11):2019-23. PubMed ID: 25193778 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Radiologists' interpretive efficiency and variability in true- and false-positive detection when screen-reading with tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) relative to standard mammography in population screening. Svahn TM; Macaskill P; Houssami N Breast; 2015 Dec; 24(6):687-93. PubMed ID: 26433751 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. Elmore JG; Wells CK; Lee CH; Howard DH; Feinstein AR N Engl J Med; 1994 Dec; 331(22):1493-9. PubMed ID: 7969300 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Variations in screening outcome among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading of screening mammograms: a population-based study. Klompenhouwer EG; Duijm LE; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Nederend J; Jansen FH; Broeders MJ Eur Radiol; 2014 May; 24(5):1097-104. PubMed ID: 24500086 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]