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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

98 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15177419)

  • 1. Breast screening: the use of consensus opinion for all recalls.
    Matcham NJ; Ridley NT; Taylor SJ; Cook JL; Scolding J
    Breast; 2004 Jun; 13(3):184-7. PubMed ID: 15177419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effect of recall rate on earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch performance indicators.
    Otten JD; Karssemeijer N; Hendriks JH; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; Verbeek AL; de Koning HJ; Holland R
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2005 May; 97(10):748-54. PubMed ID: 15900044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Optimal screening mammography reading volumes; evidence from real life in the East Midlands region of the NHS Breast Screening Programme.
    Cornford E; Reed J; Murphy A; Bennett R; Evans A
    Clin Radiol; 2011 Feb; 66(2):103-7. PubMed ID: 21216324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Consensus review of discordant findings maximizes cancer detection rate in double-reader screening mammography: Irish National Breast Screening Program experience.
    Shaw CM; Flanagan FL; Fenlon HM; McNicholas MM
    Radiology; 2009 Feb; 250(2):354-62. PubMed ID: 19188311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A comparison of cancer detection rates achieved by breast cancer screening programmes by number of readers, for one and two view mammography: results from the UK National Health Service breast screening programme.
    Blanks RG; Wallis MG; Moss SM
    J Med Screen; 1998; 5(4):195-201. PubMed ID: 9934650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Impact of use of hormone replacement therapy on false positive recall in the NHS breast screening programme: results from the Million Women Study.
    Banks E; Reeves G; Beral V; Bull D; Crossley B; Simmonds M; Hilton E; Bailey S; Barrett N; Briers P; English R; Jackson A; Kutt E; Lavelle J; Rockall L; Wallis MG; Wilson M; Patnick J
    BMJ; 2004 May; 328(7451):1291-2. PubMed ID: 15166064
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Predictors of outcome of mammography in the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme.
    Banks E; Reeves G; Beral V; Bull D; Crossley B; Simmonds M; Hilton E; Bailey S; Barrett N; Briers P; English R; Jackson A; Kutt E; Lavelle J; Rockall L; Wallis MG; Wilson M
    J Med Screen; 2002; 9(2):74-82. PubMed ID: 12133927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparing the performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK.
    Smith-Bindman R; Ballard-Barbash R; Miglioretti DL; Patnick J; Kerlikowske K
    J Med Screen; 2005; 12(1):50-4. PubMed ID: 15814020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Monitoring and evaluating the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme: evaluating the variation in radiological performance between individual programmes using PPV-referral diagrams.
    Blanks RG; Moss SM; Wallis MG
    J Med Screen; 2001; 8(1):24-8. PubMed ID: 11373846
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom.
    Smith-Bindman R; Chu PW; Miglioretti DL; Sickles EA; Blanks R; Ballard-Barbash R; Bobo JK; Lee NC; Wallis MG; Patnick J; Kerlikowske K
    JAMA; 2003 Oct; 290(16):2129-37. PubMed ID: 14570948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A retrospective audit of the first screening round of the Maltese breast screening programme.
    Mizzi D; Zarb F; Dennis A
    Radiography (Lond); 2017 Feb; 23(1):60-66. PubMed ID: 28290342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Cumulative false positive recall rate and association with participant related factors in a population based breast cancer screening programme.
    Castells X; Molins E; Macià F
    J Epidemiol Community Health; 2006 Apr; 60(4):316-21. PubMed ID: 16537348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Minority report - false negative breast assessment in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography: imaging and pathological features, and associated delay in diagnosis.
    Ciatto S; Houssami N; Ambrogetti D; Bonardi R; Collini G; Del Turco MR
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2007 Sep; 105(1):37-43. PubMed ID: 17115112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Should a standard be defined for the Positive Predictive Value (PPV) of recall in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme?
    Bennett RL; Blanks RG
    Breast; 2007 Feb; 16(1):55-9. PubMed ID: 16904891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Impact of the number of readers on mammography interpretation.
    Hukkinen K; Kivisaari L; Vehmas T
    Acta Radiol; 2006 Sep; 47(7):655-9. PubMed ID: 16950700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Hormone replacement therapy and false positive recall in the Million Women Study: patterns of use, hormonal constituents and consistency of effect.
    Banks E; Reeves G; Beral V; Bull D; Crossley B; Simmonds M; Hilton E; Bailey S; Barrett N; Briers P; English R; Jackson A; Kutt E; Lavelle J; Rockall L; Wallis MG; Wilson M; Patnick J
    Breast Cancer Res; 2006; 8(1):R8. PubMed ID: 16417651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Results from the Swiss mammography screening pilot programme.
    Bulliard JL; De Landtsheer JP; Levi F
    Eur J Cancer; 2003 Aug; 39(12):1761-9. PubMed ID: 12888372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of single reading with double reading of mammograms, and change in effectiveness with experience.
    Warren RM; Duffy SW
    Br J Radiol; 1995 Sep; 68(813):958-62. PubMed ID: 7496693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.