196 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15914475)
1. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography.
Sickles EA; Miglioretti DL; Ballard-Barbash R; Geller BM; Leung JW; Rosenberg RD; Smith-Bindman R; Yankaskas BC
Radiology; 2005 Jun; 235(3):775-90. PubMed ID: 15914475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography.
Rosenberg RD; Yankaskas BC; Abraham LA; Sickles EA; Lehman CD; Geller BM; Carney PA; Kerlikowske K; Buist DS; Weaver DL; Barlow WE; Ballard-Barbash R
Radiology; 2006 Oct; 241(1):55-66. PubMed ID: 16990671
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
Lehman CD; Arao RF; Sprague BL; Lee JM; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Henderson LM; Onega T; Tosteson AN; Rauscher GH; Miglioretti DL
Radiology; 2017 Apr; 283(1):49-58. PubMed ID: 27918707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Diagnostic Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
Sprague BL; Arao RF; Miglioretti DL; Henderson LM; Buist DS; Onega T; Rauscher GH; Lee JM; Tosteson AN; Kerlikowske K; Lehman CD;
Radiology; 2017 Apr; 283(1):59-69. PubMed ID: 28244803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The National Mammography Database: Preliminary Data.
Lee CS; Bhargavan-Chatfield M; Burnside ES; Nagy P; Sickles EA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Apr; 206(4):883-90. PubMed ID: 26866649
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Proposed biopsy performance benchmarks for MRI based on an audit of a large academic center.
Sedora Román NI; Mehta TS; Sharpe RE; Slanetz PJ; Venkataraman S; Fein-Zachary V; Dialani V
Breast J; 2018 May; 24(3):319-324. PubMed ID: 28833841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Clinical outcome assessment in mammography: an audit of 7,506 screening and diagnostic mammography examinations.
Tunçbilek I; Ozdemir A; Gültekin S; Oğur T; Erman R; Yüce C
Diagn Interv Radiol; 2007 Dec; 13(4):183-7. PubMed ID: 18092288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Auditing and benchmarks in screening and diagnostic mammography.
Feig SA
Radiol Clin North Am; 2007 Sep; 45(5):791-800, vi. PubMed ID: 17888769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Diagnostic mammography: identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria.
Carney PA; Parikh J; Sickles EA; Feig SA; Monsees B; Bassett LW; Smith RA; Rosenberg R; Ichikawa L; Wallace J; Tran K; Miglioretti DL
Radiology; 2013 May; 267(2):359-67. PubMed ID: 23297329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States.
Buist DS; Anderson ML; Haneuse SJ; Sickles EA; Smith RA; Carney PA; Taplin SH; Rosenberg RD; Geller BM; Onega TL; Monsees BS; Bassett LW; Yankaskas BC; Elmore JG; Kerlikowske K; Miglioretti DL
Radiology; 2011 Apr; 259(1):72-84. PubMed ID: 21343539
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Breast cancer yield for screening mammographic examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up.
Kerlikowske K; Smith-Bindman R; Abraham LA; Lehman CD; Yankaskas BC; Ballard-Barbash R; Barlow WE; Voeks JH; Geller BM; Carney PA; Sickles EA
Radiology; 2005 Mar; 234(3):684-92. PubMed ID: 15734926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Computer-aided detection with screening mammography in a university hospital setting.
Birdwell RL; Bandodkar P; Ikeda DM
Radiology; 2005 Aug; 236(2):451-7. PubMed ID: 16040901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study.
Lehman CD; Isaacs C; Schnall MD; Pisano ED; Ascher SM; Weatherall PT; Bluemke DA; Bowen DJ; Marcom PK; Armstrong DK; Domchek SM; Tomlinson G; Skates SJ; Gatsonis C
Radiology; 2007 Aug; 244(2):381-8. PubMed ID: 17641362
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Breast cancer detection rate: designing imaging trials to demonstrate improvements.
Jiang Y; Miglioretti DL; Metz CE; Schmidt RA
Radiology; 2007 May; 243(2):360-7. PubMed ID: 17456866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Breast cancer detection with short-interval follow-up compared with return to annual screening in patients with benign stereotactic or US-guided breast biopsy results.
Johnson JM; Johnson AK; O'Meara ES; Miglioretti DL; Geller BM; Hotaling EN; Herschorn SD
Radiology; 2015 Apr; 275(1):54-60. PubMed ID: 25423143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
