171 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11450966)
21. Does training in the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) improve biopsy recommendations or feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography?
Berg WA; D'Orsi CJ; Jackson VP; Bassett LW; Beam CA; Lewis RS; Crewson PE
Radiology; 2002 Sep; 224(3):871-80. PubMed ID: 12202727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Improving Breast Ultrasound Interpretation in Uganda Using a Condensed Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.
Scheel JR; Peacock S; Orem J; Bugeza S; Muyinda Z; Porter PL; Wood WC; Comis RL; Lehman CD
Acad Radiol; 2016 Oct; 23(10):1271-7. PubMed ID: 27325412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Using the BI-RADS lexicon in a restrictive form of double reading as a strategy for minimizing screening mammography recall rates.
Ghate SV; Baker JA; Kim CE; Johnson KS; Walsh R; Soo MS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Apr; 198(4):962-70. PubMed ID: 22451567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Breast screening: PERFORMS identifies key mammographic training needs.
Scott HJ; Gale AG
Br J Radiol; 2006 Dec; 79 Spec No 2():S127-33. PubMed ID: 17209118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. A Pictorial Review of Changes in the BI-RADS Fifth Edition.
Rao AA; Feneis J; Lalonde C; Ojeda-Fournier H
Radiographics; 2016; 36(3):623-39. PubMed ID: 27082663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Outcomes of unconventional utilization of BI-RADS category 3 assessment at opportunistic screening.
Altas H; Tureli D; Cengic I; Kucukkaya F; Aribal E; Kaya H
Acta Radiol; 2016 Nov; 57(11):1304-1309. PubMed ID: 26019241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists.
Sickles EA; Wolverton DE; Dee KE
Radiology; 2002 Sep; 224(3):861-9. PubMed ID: 12202726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value.
Lazarus E; Mainiero MB; Schepps B; Koelliker SL; Livingston LS
Radiology; 2006 May; 239(2):385-91. PubMed ID: 16569780
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Potential Use of American College of Radiology BI-RADS Mammography Atlas for Reporting and Assessing Lesions Detected on Dedicated Breast CT Imaging: Preliminary Study.
Jung HK; Kuzmiak CM; Kim KW; Choi NM; Kim HJ; Langman EL; Yoon S; Steen D; Zeng D; Gao F
Acad Radiol; 2017 Nov; 24(11):1395-1401. PubMed ID: 28728854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Accuracy of assigned BI-RADS breast density category definitions.
Nicholson BT; LoRusso AP; Smolkin M; Bovbjerg VE; Petroni GR; Harvey JA
Acad Radiol; 2006 Sep; 13(9):1143-9. PubMed ID: 16935726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Inter-reader Variability in the Use of BI-RADS Descriptors for Suspicious Findings on Diagnostic Mammography: A Multi-institution Study of 10 Academic Radiologists.
Lee AY; Wisner DJ; Aminololama-Shakeri S; Arasu VA; Feig SA; Hargreaves J; Ojeda-Fournier H; Bassett LW; Wells CJ; De Guzman J; Flowers CI; Campbell JE; Elson SL; Retallack H; Joe BN
Acad Radiol; 2017 Jan; 24(1):60-66. PubMed ID: 27793579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Experiences with a self-test for Dutch breast screening radiologists: lessons learnt.
Timmers JM; Verbeek AL; Pijnappel RM; Broeders MJ; den Heeten GJ
Eur Radiol; 2014 Feb; 24(2):294-304. PubMed ID: 24057201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Reader characteristics and mammogram features associated with breast imaging reporting scores.
Trieu PDY; Lewis SJ; Li T; Ho K; Tapia KA; Brennan PC
Br J Radiol; 2020 Oct; 93(1114):20200363. PubMed ID: 32730088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Objectivity and accuracy of mammogram interpretation using the BI-RADS final assessment categories in 40- to 49-year-old women.
McKay C; Hart CL; Erbacher G
J Am Osteopath Assoc; 2000 Oct; 100(10):615-20. PubMed ID: 11105450
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. [Neddle-guided biopsy in the diagnosis of non-palpable breast cancer].
Becerra-Alcántara GI; Círigo-Villagómez LL; Ramos-Medina F; Robledo-Martínez H; Mar-Merinos CG; Panzi-Altamirano RM
Ginecol Obstet Mex; 2015 Jul; 83(7):400-7. PubMed ID: 26422910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. BI-RADS: use in the French radiologic community. How to overcome with some difficulties.
Stines J
Eur J Radiol; 2007 Feb; 61(2):224-34. PubMed ID: 17178447
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Computer-aided classification of BI-RADS category 3 breast lesions.
Buchbinder SS; Leichter IS; Lederman RB; Novak B; Bamberger PN; Sklair-Levy M; Yarmish G; Fields SI
Radiology; 2004 Mar; 230(3):820-3. PubMed ID: 14739315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. When radiologists perform best: the learning curve in screening mammogram interpretation.
Miglioretti DL; Gard CC; Carney PA; Onega TL; Buist DS; Sickles EA; Kerlikowske K; Rosenberg RD; Yankaskas BC; Geller BM; Elmore JG
Radiology; 2009 Dec; 253(3):632-40. PubMed ID: 19789234
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. [Validity and reliability of mammographic interpretation by Mexican radiologists, using the BI-RADS system].
Torres-Mejía G; Villaseñor-Navarro Y; Yunes-Díaz E; Angeles-Llerenas A; Martínez-Montañez OG; Lazcano-Ponce E
Rev Invest Clin; 2011; 63(2):124-34. PubMed ID: 21717719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
