358 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17456866)
21. Effect of integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D-mammography on radiologists' true-positive and false-positive detection in a population screening trial: A descriptive study.
Bernardi D; Li T; Pellegrini M; Macaskill P; Valentini M; Fantò C; Ostillio L; Houssami N
Eur J Radiol; 2018 Sep; 106():26-31. PubMed ID: 30150047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. 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]
24. 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]
25. Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms.
Skaane P; Kshirsagar A; Stapleton S; Young K; Castellino RA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Feb; 188(2):377-84. PubMed ID: 17242245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. Results of a survey on digital screening mammography: prevalence, efficiency, and use of ancillary diagnostic AIDS.
Haygood TM; Whitman GJ; Atkinson EN; Nikolova RG; Sandoval SY; Dempsey PJ
J Am Coll Radiol; 2008 Apr; 5(4):585-92. PubMed ID: 18359447
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. A review of interval breast cancers diagnosed among participants of the Nova Scotia Breast Screening Program.
Payne JI; Caines JS; Gallant J; Foley TJ
Radiology; 2013 Jan; 266(1):96-103. PubMed ID: 23169791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Use of BI-RADS 3-probably benign category in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial.
Baum JK; Hanna LG; Acharyya S; Mahoney MC; Conant EF; Bassett LW; Pisano ED
Radiology; 2011 Jul; 260(1):61-7. PubMed ID: 21502382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Detection of bilateral breast cancer at biennial screening mammography in the Netherlands: a population-based study.
Setz-Pels W; Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; Voogd AC; Jansen FH; Hooijen MJ; Louwman MW
Radiology; 2011 Aug; 260(2):357-63. PubMed ID: 21474705
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. First epidemiological analysis of breast cancer incidence and tumor characteristics after implementation of population-based digital mammography screening.
Weigel S; Batzler WU; Decker T; Hense HW; Heindel W
Rofo; 2009 Dec; 181(12):1144-50. PubMed ID: 19859859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Cancer detection and mammogram volume of radiologists in a population-based screening programme.
Rickard M; Taylor R; Page A; Estoesta J
Breast; 2006 Feb; 15(1):39-43. PubMed ID: 16005226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Organized breast screening programs in Canada: effect of radiologist reading volumes on outcomes.
Coldman AJ; Major D; Doyle GP; D'yachkova Y; Phillips N; Onysko J; Shumak R; Smith NE; Wadden N
Radiology; 2006 Mar; 238(3):809-15. PubMed ID: 16424236
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Can computer-aided detection with double reading of screening mammograms help decrease the false-negative rate? Initial experience.
Destounis SV; DiNitto P; Logan-Young W; Bonaccio E; Zuley ML; Willison KM
Radiology; 2004 Aug; 232(2):578-84. PubMed ID: 15229350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. Radiologists' interpretive efficiency and variability in true- and false-positive detection when screen-reading with tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) relative to standard mammography in population screening.
Svahn TM; Macaskill P; Houssami N
Breast; 2015 Dec; 24(6):687-93. PubMed ID: 26433751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Screening breast MR imaging in women with a history of chest irradiation.
Sung JS; Lee CH; Morris EA; Oeffinger KC; Dershaw DD
Radiology; 2011 Apr; 259(1):65-71. PubMed ID: 21325032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Are radiologists' goals for mammography accuracy consistent with published recommendations?
Jackson SL; Cook AJ; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Geller BM; Onega T; Rosenberg RD; Brenner RJ; Elmore JG
Acad Radiol; 2012 Mar; 19(3):289-95. PubMed ID: 22130089
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Blinded comparison of computer-aided detection with human second reading in screening mammography.
Georgian-Smith D; Moore RH; Halpern E; Yeh ED; Rafferty EA; D'Alessandro HA; Staffa M; Hall DA; McCarthy KA; Kopans DB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Nov; 189(5):1135-41. PubMed ID: 17954651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
