105 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18641262)
1. DMIST results: technologic or observer variability?
Kopans DB; Pisano ED; Acharyya S; Hendrick RE; Yaffe MJ; Conant EF; Fajardo LL; Bassett LW; Baum JK; Gatsonis CA
Radiology; 2008 Aug; 248(2):703; author reply 703. PubMed ID: 18641262
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. A limitation of ACRIN DMIST.
Hixson GL; Hendrick RE; Pisano ED; Yaffe MJ; Gatsonis CA
Radiology; 2008 Aug; 248(2):702; author reply 702-3. PubMed ID: 18641261
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST.
Pisano ED; Hendrick RE; Yaffe MJ; Baum JK; Acharyya S; Cormack JB; Hanna LA; Conant EF; Fajardo LL; Bassett LW; D'Orsi CJ; Jong RA; Rebner M; Tosteson AN; Gatsonis CA;
Radiology; 2008 Feb; 246(2):376-83. PubMed ID: 18227537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. History repeats.
Kopans DB
Radiology; 2008 Feb; 246(2):645; author reply 645-6. PubMed ID: 18227558
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Digital compared with screen-film mammography: performance measures in concurrent cohorts within an organized breast screening program.
Chiarelli AM; Edwards SA; Prummel MV; Muradali D; Majpruz V; Done SJ; Brown P; Shumak RS; Yaffe MJ
Radiology; 2013 Sep; 268(3):684-93. PubMed ID: 23674784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The positive predictive value for diagnosis of breast cancer full-field digital mammography versus film-screen mammography in the diagnostic mammographic population.
Seo BK; Pisano ED; Kuzmiak CM; Koomen M; Pavic D; McLelland R; Lee Y; Cole EB; Mattingly D; Lee J
Acad Radiol; 2006 Oct; 13(10):1229-35. PubMed ID: 16979072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Screening Mammography Efficacy: A Comparison Between Screen-Film, Computed Radiography and Digital Mammography in Taiwan.
Elbakkoush AA; Atique S; Chiang IJ
Stud Health Technol Inform; 2015; 216():914. PubMed ID: 26262216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Impact of a CAD system in a screen-film mammography screening program: a prospective study.
Sanchez Gómez S; Torres Tabanera M; Vega Bolivar A; Sainz Miranda M; Baroja Mazo A; Ruiz Diaz M; Martinez Miravete P; Lag Asturiano E; Muñoz Cacho P; Delgado Macias T
Eur J Radiol; 2011 Dec; 80(3):e317-21. PubMed ID: 20863639
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Point/Counterpoint. Film mammography for breast cancer screening in younger women is no longer appropriate because of the demonstrated superiority of digital mammography for this age group.
Yaffe MJ; Barnes GT; Orton CG
Med Phys; 2006 Nov; 33(11):3979-82. PubMed ID: 17153375
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Blinded comparison of computer-aided detection with human second reading in screening mammography: the importance of the question and the critical numbers game.
Brem RF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Nov; 189(5):1142-4. PubMed ID: 17954652
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Impact of computer-aided detection systems on radiologist accuracy with digital mammography.
Cole EB; Zhang Z; Marques HS; Edward Hendrick R; Yaffe MJ; Pisano ED
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Oct; 203(4):909-16. PubMed ID: 25247960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Patient doses from screen-film and full-field digital mammography in a population-based screening programme.
Hauge IH; Pedersen K; Sanderud A; Hofvind S; Olerud HM
Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2012 Jan; 148(1):65-73. PubMed ID: 21335333
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Time trends in breast cancer screening rates in the OECD countries.
Saika K; Sobue T
Jpn J Clin Oncol; 2011 Apr; 41(4):591-2. PubMed ID: 21447696
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Transition to digital mammography.
Hall FM
Radiology; 2012 Jan; 262(1):374; author reply 374. PubMed ID: 22190668
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Evaluating the correlation between film mammography and MRI for screening women with increased breast cancer risk.
Lee JM; Halpern EF; Rafferty EA; Gazelle GS
Acad Radiol; 2009 Nov; 16(11):1323-8. PubMed ID: 19632865
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Timed efficiency of interpretation of digital and film-screen screening mammograms.
Haygood TM; Wang J; Atkinson EN; Lane D; Stephens TW; Patel P; Whitman GJ
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Jan; 192(1):216-20. PubMed ID: 19098202
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Mammography in younger women: the dilemma of diminishing returns.
Calonge N
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2010 May; 102(10):668-9. PubMed ID: 20439837
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
