192 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18803871)
1. How does age affect baseline screening mammography performance measures? A decision model.
Keen JD; Keen JE
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2008 Sep; 8():40. PubMed ID: 18803871
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Performance assessment for radiologists interpreting screening mammography.
Woodard DB; Gelfand AE; Barlow WE; Elmore JG
Stat Med; 2007 Mar; 26(7):1532-51. PubMed ID: 16847870
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Prospective assessment of computer-aided detection in interpretation of screening mammography.
Ko JM; Nicholas MJ; Mendel JB; Slanetz PJ
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Dec; 187(6):1483-91. PubMed ID: 17114541
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. International comparison of performance measures for screening mammography: can it be done?
Yankaskas BC; Klabunde CN; Ancelle-Park R; Renner G; Wang H; Fracheboud J; Pou G; Bulliard JL;
J Med Screen; 2004; 11(4):187-93. PubMed ID: 15624239
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. [Tailored Breast Screening Trial (TBST)].
Paci E; Mantellini P; Giorgi Rossi P; Falini P; Puliti D;
Epidemiol Prev; 2013; 37(4-5):317-27. PubMed ID: 24293498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A retrospective audit of the first screening round of the Maltese breast screening programme.
Mizzi D; Zarb F; Dennis A
Radiography (Lond); 2017 Feb; 23(1):60-66. PubMed ID: 28290342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States.
Yankaskas BC; Taplin SH; Ichikawa L; Geller BM; Rosenberg RD; Carney PA; Kerlikowske K; Ballard-Barbash R; Cutter GR; Barlow WE
Radiology; 2005 Feb; 234(2):363-73. PubMed ID: 15670994
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Accuracy of screening mammography in older women.
Sinclair N; Littenberg B; Geller B; Muss H
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Nov; 197(5):1268-73. PubMed ID: 22021524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Criteria for identifying radiologists with acceptable screening mammography interpretive performance on basis of multiple performance measures.
Miglioretti DL; Ichikawa L; Smith RA; Bassett LW; Feig SA; Monsees B; Parikh JR; Rosenberg RD; Sickles EA; Carney PA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Apr; 204(4):W486-91. PubMed ID: 25794100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Nation-wide data on screening performance during the transition to digital mammography: observations in 6 million screens.
van Luijt PA; Fracheboud J; Heijnsdijk EA; den Heeten GJ; de Koning HJ;
Eur J Cancer; 2013 Nov; 49(16):3517-25. PubMed ID: 23871248
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Alignment of breast cancer screening guidelines, accountability metrics, and practice patterns.
Onega T; Haas JS; Bitton A; Brackett C; Weiss J; Goodrich M; Harris K; Pyle S; Tosteson AN
Am J Manag Care; 2017 Jan; 23(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 28141929
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Clinical outcome assessment in mammography: an audit of 7,506 screening and diagnostic mammography examinations.
Tunçbilek I; Ozdemir A; Gültekin S; Oğur T; Erman R; Yüce C
Diagn Interv Radiol; 2007 Dec; 13(4):183-7. PubMed ID: 18092288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Examining accuracy of screening mammography using an event order model.
Paliwal P; Gelfand AE; Abraham L; Barlow W; Elmore JG
Stat Med; 2006 Jan; 25(2):267-83. PubMed ID: 16381074
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Trends in breast cancer screening in Missouri from 1987 to 1995, and predictions for the years 2000 and 2010.
Sarr M; Simoes EJ; Murayi T; Figgs LT; Brownson RC
Mo Med; 1998 Dec; 95(12):663-9. PubMed ID: 9863343
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography.
Sickles EA; Miglioretti DL; Ballard-Barbash R; Geller BM; Leung JW; Rosenberg RD; Smith-Bindman R; Yankaskas BC
Radiology; 2005 Jun; 235(3):775-90. PubMed ID: 15914475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
