232 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15671359)
1. Community-based mammography practice: services, charges, and interpretation methods.
Hendrick RE; Cutter GR; Berns EA; Nakano C; Egger J; Carney PA; Abraham L; Taplin SH; D'Orsi CJ; Barlow W; Elmore JG
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Feb; 184(2):433-8. PubMed ID: 15671359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Quality assurance audits of community screening mammography practices: availability of active follow-up for data collection and outcome assessment.
Brown ML; Houn F
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Oct; 163(4):825-9. PubMed ID: 8092017
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Screening mammography in community practice: positive predictive value of abnormal findings and yield of follow-up diagnostic procedures.
Brown ML; Houn F; Sickles EA; Kessler LG
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Dec; 165(6):1373-7. PubMed ID: 7484568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. U.S. screening mammography services with mobile units: results from the National Survey of Mammography Facilities.
Brown ML; Fintor L
Radiology; 1995 May; 195(2):529-32. PubMed ID: 7724778
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Screening Mammography With and Without Computer-Aided Detection.
Lehman CD; Wellman RD; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Tosteson AN; Miglioretti DL;
JAMA Intern Med; 2015 Nov; 175(11):1828-37. PubMed ID: 26414882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Current realities of delivering mammography services in the community: do challenges with staffing and scheduling exist?
D'Orsi C; Tu SP; Nakano C; Carney PA; Abraham LA; Taplin SH; Hendrick RE; Cutter GR; Berns E; Barlow WE; Elmore JG
Radiology; 2005 May; 235(2):391-5. PubMed ID: 15798153
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Variability of interpretive accuracy among diagnostic mammography facilities.
Jackson SL; Taplin SH; Sickles EA; Abraham L; Barlow WE; Carney PA; Geller B; Berns EA; Cutter GR; Elmore JG
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2009 Jun; 101(11):814-27. PubMed ID: 19470953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Mammography facility characteristics associated with interpretive accuracy of screening mammography.
Taplin S; Abraham L; Barlow WE; Fenton JJ; Berns EA; Carney PA; Cutter GR; Sickles EA; Carl D; Elmore JG
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2008 Jun; 100(12):876-87. PubMed ID: 18544742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography in a community practice: are there differences between specialists and general radiologists?
Leung JW; Margolin FR; Dee KE; Jacobs RP; Denny SR; Schrumpf JD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Jan; 188(1):236-41. PubMed ID: 17179372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Medical audit of diagnostic mammography examinations: comparison with screening outcomes obtained concurrently.
Dee KE; Sickles EA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2001 Mar; 176(3):729-33. PubMed ID: 11222214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Breast cancer screening in 21 countries: delivery of services, notification of results and outcomes ascertainment.
Ballard-Barbash R; Klabunde C; Paci E; Broeders M; Coleman EA; Fracheboud J; Bouchard F; Rennert G; Shapiro S
Eur J Cancer Prev; 1999 Oct; 8(5):417-26. PubMed ID: 10548397
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Enhancing early breast cancer screening: an expanded role for mammography facilities is needed.
Gregorio DI; Kegeles S; Parker C; Benn S
Cancer Detect Prev; 1991; 15(2):151-3. PubMed ID: 2032257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of results from quality control of physical parameters and results from clinical evaluation of mammographic images for the mammography screening facilities in Poland.
Fabiszewska E; Grabska I; Jankowska K; Wesolowska E; Bulski W
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2011 Sep; 147(1-2):206-9. PubMed ID: 21824870
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Utilization of Computer-Aided Detection for Digital Screening Mammography in the United States, 2008 to 2016.
Keen JD; Keen JM; Keen JE
J Am Coll Radiol; 2018 Jan; 15(1 Pt A):44-48. PubMed ID: 28993109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Accreditation of mammography facilities by the American College of Radiology: results of a national survey.
Brown ML; Fintor L
Am J Prev Med; 1994; 10(3):162-7. PubMed ID: 7917443
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. External validation of Medicare claims codes for digital mammography and computer-aided detection.
Fenton JJ; Zhu W; Balch S; Smith-Bindman R; Lindfors KK; Hubbard RA
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2012 Aug; 21(8):1344-7. PubMed ID: 22695737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. National trends and practices in breast MRI.
Bassett LW; Dhaliwal SG; Eradat J; Khan O; Farria DF; Brenner RJ; Sayre JW
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Aug; 191(2):332-9. PubMed ID: 18647898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Medical audit of a rapid-throughput mammography screening practice: methodology and results of 27,114 examinations.
Sickles EA; Ominsky SH; Sollitto RA; Galvin HB; Monticciolo DL
Radiology; 1990 May; 175(2):323-7. PubMed ID: 2326455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Development of a community mammography registry: experience in the breast screening program project.
Clark R; Geller B; Peluso N; McVety D; Worden JK
Radiology; 1995 Sep; 196(3):811-5. PubMed ID: 7644648
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
