320 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17179372)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.
Buist DS; Anderson ML; Smith RA; Carney PA; Miglioretti DL; Monsees BS; Sickles EA; Taplin SH; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Onega TL
Radiology; 2014 Nov; 273(2):351-64. PubMed ID: 24960110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practice.
Henderson LM; Benefield T; Marsh MW; Schroeder BF; Durham DD; Yankaskas BC; Bowling JM
Acad Radiol; 2015 Mar; 22(3):278-89. PubMed ID: 25435185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Recall and detection rates in screening mammography.
Gur D; Sumkin JH; Hardesty LA; Clearfield RJ; Cohen CS; Ganott MA; Hakim CM; Harris KM; Poller WR; Shah R; Wallace LP; Rockette HE
Cancer; 2004 Apr; 100(8):1590-4. PubMed ID: 15073844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Additional double reading of screening mammograms by radiologic technologists: impact on screening performance parameters.
Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; de Koning HJ
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Aug; 99(15):1162-70. PubMed ID: 17652282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Digital mammography: its impact on recall rates and cancer detection rates in a small community-based radiology practice.
Vernacchia FS; Pena ZG
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Aug; 193(2):582-5. PubMed ID: 19620459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Do mammographic technologists affect radiologists' diagnostic mammography interpretative performance?
Henderson LM; Benefield T; Bowling JM; Durham DD; Marsh MW; Schroeder BF; Yankaskas BC
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Apr; 204(4):903-8. PubMed ID: 25794085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Feasibility and satisfaction with a tailored web-based audit intervention for recalibrating radiologists' thresholds for conducting additional work-up.
Carney PA; Geller BM; Sickles EA; Miglioretti DL; Aiello Bowles EJ; Abraham L; Feig SA; Brown D; Cook AJ; Yankaskas BC; Elmore JG
Acad Radiol; 2011 Mar; 18(3):369-76. PubMed ID: 21193335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy.
Elmore JG; Jackson SL; Abraham L; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Kerlikowske K; Onega T; Rosenberg RD; Sickles EA; Buist DS
Radiology; 2009 Dec; 253(3):641-51. PubMed ID: 19864507
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography.
Warren Burhenne LJ; Wood SA; D'Orsi CJ; Feig SA; Kopans DB; O'Shaughnessy KF; Sickles EA; Tabar L; Vyborny CJ; Castellino RA
Radiology; 2000 May; 215(2):554-62. PubMed ID: 10796939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships.
Esserman L; Cowley H; Eberle C; Kirkpatrick A; Chang S; Berbaum K; Gale A
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2002 Mar; 94(5):369-75. PubMed ID: 11880475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
