217 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17517927)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Effect of transition to digital mammography on clinical outcomes.
Glynn CG; Farria DM; Monsees BS; Salcman JT; Wiele KN; Hildebolt CF
Radiology; 2011 Sep; 260(3):664-70. PubMed ID: 21788529
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography.
Yankaskas BC; Cleveland RJ; Schell MJ; Kozar R
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2001 Sep; 177(3):543-9. PubMed ID: 11517044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Recall and Cancer Detection Rates for Screening Mammography: Finding the Sweet Spot.
Grabler P; Sighoko D; Wang L; Allgood K; Ansell D
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Jan; 208(1):208-213. PubMed ID: 27680714
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Consensus review of discordant findings maximizes cancer detection rate in double-reader screening mammography: Irish National Breast Screening Program experience.
Shaw CM; Flanagan FL; Fenlon HM; McNicholas MM
Radiology; 2009 Feb; 250(2):354-62. PubMed ID: 19188311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Comparison of recall and cancer detection rates for immediate versus batch interpretation of screening mammograms.
Ghate SV; Soo MS; Baker JA; Walsh R; Gimenez EI; Rosen EL
Radiology; 2005 Apr; 235(1):31-5. PubMed ID: 15798165
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Compliance With Screening Mammography Guidelines After a False-Positive Mammogram.
Hardesty LA; Lind KE; Gutierrez EJ
J Am Coll Radiol; 2016 Sep; 13(9):1032-8. PubMed ID: 27233908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection.
Sala M; Comas M; Macià F; Martinez J; Casamitjana M; Castells X
Radiology; 2009 Jul; 252(1):31-9. PubMed ID: 19420316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. A true screening environment for review of interval breast cancers: pilot study to reduce bias.
Gordon PB; Borugian MJ; Warren Burhenne LJ
Radiology; 2007 Nov; 245(2):411-5. PubMed ID: 17848684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader at screening mammography lowers recall rate but not the cancer detection rate and sensitivity at blinded and non-blinded double reading.
Klompenhouwer EG; Weber RJ; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Strobbe LJ; Broeders MJ; Tjan-Heijnen VC; Duijm LE
Breast; 2015 Oct; 24(5):601-7. PubMed ID: 26117723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
