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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

249 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19259088)

  • 1. Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome.
    Duijm LE; Louwman MW; Groenewoud JH; van de Poll-Franse LV; Fracheboud J; Coebergh JW
    Br J Cancer; 2009 Mar; 100(6):901-7. PubMed ID: 19259088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Introduction of additional double reading of mammograms by radiographers: effects on a biennial screening programme outcome.
    Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; van Ineveld BM; Roumen RM; de Koning HJ
    Eur J Cancer; 2008 Jun; 44(9):1223-8. PubMed ID: 18400488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of radiographer/radiologist double film reading with single reading in breast cancer screening.
    Pauli R; Hammond S; Cooke J; Ansell J
    J Med Screen; 1996; 3(1):18-22. PubMed ID: 8861046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Variations in screening outcome among pairs of screening radiologists at non-blinded double reading of screening mammograms: a population-based study.
    Klompenhouwer EG; Duijm LE; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Nederend J; Jansen FH; Broeders MJ
    Eur Radiol; 2014 May; 24(5):1097-104. PubMed ID: 24500086
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Performance of Radiologists and Radiographers in Double Reading Mammograms: The UK National Health Service Breast Screening Program.
    Chen Y; James JJ; Michalopoulou E; Darker IT; Jenkins J
    Radiology; 2023 Jan; 306(1):102-109. PubMed ID: 36098643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: a prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands.
    Klompenhouwer EG; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Strobbe LJ; de Haan AF; Wauters CA; Broeders MJ; Duijm LE
    Eur J Cancer; 2015 Feb; 51(3):391-9. PubMed ID: 25573788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Radiographers supporting radiologists in the interpretation of screening mammography: a viable strategy to meet the shortage in the number of radiologists.
    Torres-Mejía G; Smith RA; Carranza-Flores Mde L; Bogart A; Martínez-Matsushita L; Miglioretti DL; Kerlikowske K; Ortega-Olvera C; Montemayor-Varela E; Angeles-Llerenas A; Bautista-Arredondo S; Sánchez-González G; Martínez-Montañez OG; Uscanga-Sánchez SR; Lazcano-Ponce E; Hernández-Ávila M
    BMC Cancer; 2015 May; 15():410. PubMed ID: 25975383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Comparing the performance of trained radiographers against experienced radiologists in the UK lung cancer screening (UKLS) trial.
    Nair A; Gartland N; Barton B; Jones D; Clements L; Screaton NJ; Holemans JA; Duffy SW; Field JK; Baldwin DR; Hansell DM; Devaraj A
    Br J Radiol; 2016 Oct; 89(1066):20160301. PubMed ID: 27461068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Using breast radiographers' reports as a second opinion for radiologists' readings of microcalcifications in digital mammography.
    Tanaka R; Takamori M; Uchiyama Y; Nishikawa RM; Shiraishi J
    Br J Radiol; 2015 Mar; 88(1047):20140565. PubMed ID: 25536443
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effect of integrating 3D-mammography (digital breast tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography on radiologists' true-positive and false-positive detection in a population breast screening trial.
    Bernardi D; Caumo F; Macaskill P; Ciatto S; Pellegrini M; Brunelli S; Tuttobene P; Bricolo P; Fantò C; Valentini M; Montemezzi S; Houssami N
    Eur J Cancer; 2014 May; 50(7):1232-8. PubMed ID: 24582915
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Artificial intelligence for breast cancer detection in screening mammography in Sweden: a prospective, population-based, paired-reader, non-inferiority study.
    Dembrower K; Crippa A; Colón E; Eklund M; Strand F;
    Lancet Digit Health; 2023 Oct; 5(10):e703-e711. PubMed ID: 37690911
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Modeling Radiologists' Assessments to Explore Pairing Strategies for Optimized Double Reading of Screening Mammograms.
    Gommers JJJ; Abbey CK; Strand F; Taylor-Phillips S; Jenkinson DJ; Larsen M; Hofvind S; Broeders MJM; Sechopoulos I
    Med Decis Making; 2024 Oct; 44(7):828-842. PubMed ID: 39077968
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The impact of trained radiographers as concurrent readers on performance and reading time of experienced radiologists in the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial.
    Nair A; Screaton NJ; Holemans JA; Jones D; Clements L; Barton B; Gartland N; Duffy SW; Baldwin DR; Field JK; Hansell DM; Devaraj A
    Eur Radiol; 2018 Jan; 28(1):226-234. PubMed ID: 28643093
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Can radiographers read screening mammograms?
    Wivell G; Denton ER; Eve CB; Inglis JC; Harvey I
    Clin Radiol; 2003 Jan; 58(1):63-7. PubMed ID: 12565207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Influence of Mammography Volume on Radiologists' Performance: Results from BreastScreen Norway.
    Hoff SR; Myklebust TÅ; Lee CI; Hofvind S
    Radiology; 2019 Aug; 292(2):289-296. PubMed ID: 31135295
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Independent double reading of screening mammograms in The Netherlands: effect of arbitration following reader disagreements.
    Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; Hendriks JH; de Koning HJ
    Radiology; 2004 May; 231(2):564-70. PubMed ID: 15044742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.