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.
186 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17356992)
1. Reactions to uncertainty and the accuracy of diagnostic mammography. Carney PA; Yi JP; Abraham LA; Miglioretti DL; Aiello EJ; Gerrity MS; Reisch L; Berns EA; Sickles EA; Elmore JG J Gen Intern Med; 2007 Feb; 22(2):234-41. PubMed ID: 17356992 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Radiologist uncertainty and the interpretation of screening. Carney PA; Elmore JG; Abraham LA; Gerrity MS; Hendrick RE; Taplin SH; Barlow WE; Cutter GR; Poplack SP; D'Orsi CJ Med Decis Making; 2004; 24(3):255-64. PubMed ID: 15155014 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Does litigation influence medical practice? The influence of community radiologists' medical malpractice perceptions and experience on screening mammography. Elmore JG; Taplin SH; Barlow WE; Cutter GR; D'Orsi CJ; Hendrick RE; Abraham LA; Fosse JS; Carney PA Radiology; 2005 Jul; 236(1):37-46. PubMed ID: 15987961 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. "Memory effect" in observer performance studies of mammograms. Hardesty LA; Ganott MA; Hakim CM; Cohen CS; Clearfield RJ; Gur D Acad Radiol; 2005 Mar; 12(3):286-90. PubMed ID: 15766687 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Reality check: perceived versus actual performance of community mammographers. Fenton JJ; Egger J; Carney PA; Cutter G; D'Orsi C; Sickles EA; Fosse J; Abraham L; Taplin SH; Barlow W; Hendrick RE; Elmore JG AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Jul; 187(1):42-6. PubMed ID: 16794153 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Radiologists' performance and their enjoyment of interpreting screening mammograms. Geller BM; Bowles EJ; Sohng HY; Brenner RJ; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Elmore JG AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Feb; 192(2):361-9. PubMed ID: 19155395 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Variation in false-positive rates of mammography reading among 1067 radiologists: a population-based assessment. Tan A; Freeman DH; Goodwin JS; Freeman JL Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2006 Dec; 100(3):309-18. PubMed ID: 16819566 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample. Beam CA; Layde PM; Sullivan DC Arch Intern Med; 1996 Jan; 156(2):209-13. PubMed ID: 8546556 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]