579 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15814020)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
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. Mammography screening methods and diagnostic results.
Thurfjell E
Acta Radiol Suppl; 1995; 395():1-22. PubMed ID: 7839866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Observer variability in cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening in a study of two versus one view mammography.
Blanks RG; Wallis MG; Given-Wilson RM
J Med Screen; 1999; 6(3):152-8. PubMed ID: 10572847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Delayed diagnosis of breast cancer in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography.
Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; de Koning HJ; Coebergh JW; van Beek M; Hooijen MJ; van de Poll-Franse LV
Eur J Cancer; 2009 Mar; 45(5):774-81. PubMed ID: 19046632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data.
Vinnicombe S; Pinto Pereira SM; McCormack VA; Shiel S; Perry N; Dos Santos Silva IM
Radiology; 2009 May; 251(2):347-58. PubMed ID: 19401569
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Performance of first mammography examination in women younger than 40 years.
Yankaskas BC; Haneuse S; Kapp JM; Kerlikowske K; Geller B; Buist DS;
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2010 May; 102(10):692-701. PubMed ID: 20439838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Results of intermediate measures from a population-based, randomized trial of mammographic screening prevalence and detection of breast carcinoma among Asian women: the Singapore Breast Screening Project.
Ng EH; Ng FC; Tan PH; Low SC; Chiang G; Tan KP; Seow A; Emmanuel S; Tan CH; Ho GH; Ng LT; Wilde CC
Cancer; 1998 Apr; 82(8):1521-8. PubMed ID: 9554530
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of the Utility of Screening Mammography for High-Risk Women Undergoing Screening Breast MR Imaging.
Lo G; Scaranelo AM; Aboras H; Ghai S; Kulkarni S; Fleming R; Bukhanov K; Crystal P
Radiology; 2017 Oct; 285(1):36-43. PubMed ID: 28586291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer.
Kerlikowske K; Grady D; Barclay J; Sickles EA; Eaton A; Ernster V
JAMA; 1993 Nov; 270(20):2444-50. PubMed ID: 8230621
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Early results of breast cancer screening research].
Nowicki A; Stogowska I
Ginekol Pol; 2007 Jun; 78(6):464-70. PubMed ID: 17899703
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Opportunistic breast cancer screening in Hong Kong; a revisit of the Kwong Wah Hospital experience.
Lui CY; Lam HS; Chan LK; Tam KF; Chan CM; Leung TY; Mak KL
Hong Kong Med J; 2007 Apr; 13(2):106-13. PubMed ID: 17406037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Factors associated with imaging and procedural events used to detect breast cancer after screening mammography.
Carney PA; Abraham LA; Miglioretti DL; Yabroff KR; Sickles EA; Buist DS; Kasales CJ; Geller BM; Rosenberg RD; Dignan MB; Weaver DL; Kerlikowske K;
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Feb; 188(2):385-92. PubMed ID: 17242246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer.
Kerlikowske K; Carney PA; Geller B; Mandelson MT; Taplin SH; Malvin K; Ernster V; Urban N; Cutter G; Rosenberg R; Ballard-Barbash R
Ann Intern Med; 2000 Dec; 133(11):855-63. PubMed ID: 11103055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Frequency and predictive value of a mammographic recommendation for short-interval follow-up.
Yasmeen S; Romano PS; Pettinger M; Chlebowski RT; Robbins JA; Lane DS; Hendrix SL
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2003 Mar; 95(6):429-36. PubMed ID: 12644536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
