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)

  • 21. Radiographers as film readers in screening mammography: an assessment of competence under test and screening conditions.
    Pauli R; Hammond S; Cooke J; Ansell J
    Br J Radiol; 1996 Jan; 69(817):10-4. PubMed ID: 8785616
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. An assessment of the influence of clinical breast examination reports on the interpretation of mammograms in a breast screening program. Ontario Breast Screening Program Radiologists Research Group.
    Knight JA; Libstug AR; Moravan V; Boyd NF
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 1998 Mar; 48(1):65-71. PubMed ID: 9541190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Additional Breast Cancer Detection at Digital Screening Mammography through Quality Assurance Sessions between Technologists and Radiologists.
    Coolen AMP; Korte B; Tjan-Heijnen VCG; Bodewes HW; Voogd AC; Duijm LEM
    Radiology; 2020 Mar; 294(3):509-517. PubMed ID: 31909697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Association between radiologists' experience and accuracy in interpreting screening mammograms.
    Molins E; Macià F; Ferrer F; Maristany MT; Castells X
    BMC Health Serv Res; 2008 Apr; 8():91. PubMed ID: 18439248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Markers of good performance in mammography depend on number of annual readings.
    Rawashdeh MA; Lee WB; Bourne RM; Ryan EA; Pietrzyk MW; Reed WM; Heard RC; Black DA; Brennan PC
    Radiology; 2013 Oct; 269(1):61-7. PubMed ID: 23737538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Interpretive Performance and Inter-Observer Agreement on Digital Mammography Test Sets.
    Kim SH; Lee EH; Jun JK; Kim YM; Chang YW; Lee JH; Kim HW; Choi EJ;
    Korean J Radiol; 2019 Feb; 20(2):218-224. PubMed ID: 30672161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Does Reader Performance with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Vary according to Experience with Two-dimensional Mammography?
    Tucker L; Gilbert FJ; Astley SM; Dibden A; Seth A; Morel J; Bundred S; Litherland J; Klassen H; Lip G; Purushothaman H; Dobson HM; McClure L; Skippage P; Stoner K; Kissin C; Beetles U; Lim YY; Hurley E; Goligher J; Rahim R; Gagliardi TJ; Suaris T; Duffy SW
    Radiology; 2017 May; 283(2):371-380. PubMed ID: 28287917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Observer agreement in the reporting of knee and lumbar spine magnetic resonance (MR) imaging examinations: selectively trained MR radiographers and consultant radiologists compared with an index radiologist.
    Brealey S; Piper K; King D; Bland M; Caddick J; Campbell P; Gibbon A; Highland A; Jenkins N; Petty D; Warren D
    Eur J Radiol; 2013 Oct; 82(10):e597-605. PubMed ID: 23791130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Discrepant screening mammography assessments at blinded and non-blinded double reading: impact of arbitration by a third reader on screening outcome.
    Klompenhouwer EG; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Strobbe LJ; Tjan-Heijnen VC; Broeders MJ; Duijm LE
    Eur Radiol; 2015 Oct; 25(10):2821-9. PubMed ID: 25894007
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates.
    Elmore JG; Miglioretti DL; Reisch LM; Barton MB; Kreuter W; Christiansen CL; Fletcher SW
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2002 Sep; 94(18):1373-80. PubMed ID: 12237283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Variation in false-positive rates of mammography reading among 1067 radiologists: a population-based assessment.
    Tan A; Freeman DH; Goodwin JS; Freeman JL
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2006 Dec; 100(3):309-18. PubMed ID: 16819566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Radiologists' perceptions of computer aided detection versus double reading for mammography interpretation.
    Onega T; Aiello Bowles EJ; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Kerlikowske K; Sickles EA; Elmore JG
    Acad Radiol; 2010 Oct; 17(10):1217-26. PubMed ID: 20832024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Incorporation of the technologist's opinion for arbitration of discrepant assessments among radiologists at screening mammography.
    Coolen AMP; Lameijer JRC; Voogd AC; Strobbe LJ; Louwman MWJ; Tjan-Heijnen VCG; Duijm LEM
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2018 Aug; 171(1):143-149. PubMed ID: 29730729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Breast cancers missed by screening radiologists can be detected by reading mammograms at a distance.
    Schreutelkamp IL; Kwee RM; Veekmans P; Adriaensen MEAPM
    Ir J Med Sci; 2019 Feb; 188(1):289-293. PubMed ID: 29725926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Effect of human variability on independent double reading in screening mammography.
    Beam CA; Sullivan DC; Layde PM
    Acad Radiol; 1996 Nov; 3(11):891-7. PubMed ID: 8959178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Effect of Using the Same vs Different Order for Second Readings of Screening Mammograms on Rates of Breast Cancer Detection: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
    Taylor-Phillips S; Wallis MG; Jenkinson D; Adekanmbi V; Parsons H; Dunn J; Stallard N; Szczepura A; Gates S; Kearins O; Duncan A; Hudson S; Clarke A
    JAMA; 2016 May; 315(18):1956-65. PubMed ID: 27163985
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Double versus single reading of mammograms in a breast cancer screening programme: a cost-consequence analysis.
    Posso MC; Puig T; Quintana MJ; Solà-Roca J; Bonfill X
    Eur Radiol; 2016 Sep; 26(9):3262-71. PubMed ID: 26747264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Reading screening mammograms--attitudes among radiologists and radiographers about skill mix.
    Johansen LW; Brodersen J
    Eur J Radiol; 2011 Dec; 80(3):e325-30. PubMed ID: 21227618
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Cost-effectiveness of different reading and referral strategies in mammography screening in the Netherlands.
    Groenewoud JH; Otten JD; Fracheboud J; Draisma G; van Ineveld BM; Holland R; Verbeek AL; de Koning HJ;
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2007 Apr; 102(2):211-8. PubMed ID: 17004116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.