180 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19703878)
21. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of breast masses using digitized images versus screen-film mammography.
Liang Z; Du X; Liu J; Yao X; Yang Y; Li K
Acta Radiol; 2008 Jul; 49(6):618-22. PubMed ID: 18568552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--Oslo I study.
Skaane P; Young K; Skjennald A
Radiology; 2003 Dec; 229(3):877-84. PubMed ID: 14576447
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Technology evaluation center assessment synopsis: full-field digital mammography.
Rothenberg BM; Ziegler KM; Aronson N
J Am Coll Radiol; 2006 Aug; 3(8):586-8. PubMed ID: 17412133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis.
Michell MJ; Iqbal A; Wasan RK; Evans DR; Peacock C; Lawinski CP; Douiri A; Wilson R; Whelehan P
Clin Radiol; 2012 Oct; 67(10):976-81. PubMed ID: 22625656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial.
Rafferty EA; Park JM; Philpotts LE; Poplack SP; Sumkin JH; Halpern EF; Niklason LT
Radiology; 2013 Jan; 266(1):104-13. PubMed ID: 23169790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Mammographic density and cancer detection: does digital imaging challenge our current understanding?
Al Mousa DS; Mello-Thoms C; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Pietrzyk MW; Reed WM; Heard R; Poulos A; Tan J; Li Y; Brennan PC
Acad Radiol; 2014 Nov; 21(11):1377-85. PubMed ID: 25097013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display. The International Digital Mammography Development Group.
Pisano ED; Cole EB; Major S; Zong S; Hemminger BM; Muller KE; Johnston RE; Walsh R; Conant E; Fajardo LL; Feig SA; Nishikawa RM; Yaffe MJ; Williams MB; Aylward SR
Radiology; 2000 Sep; 216(3):820-30. PubMed ID: 10966717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Status of mammography after the Digital Mammography Imaging Screening Trial: digital versus film.
Dershaw DD
Breast J; 2006; 12(2):99-102. PubMed ID: 16509833
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Digital versus screen-film mammography: impact of mammographic density and hormone therapy on breast cancer detection.
Chiarelli AM; Prummel MV; Muradali D; Shumak RS; Majpruz V; Brown P; Jiang H; Done SJ; Yaffe MJ
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2015 Nov; 154(2):377-87. PubMed ID: 26518019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Mammographic density assessed on paired raw and processed digital images and on paired screen-film and digital images across three mammography systems.
Burton A; Byrnes G; Stone J; Tamimi RM; Heine J; Vachon C; Ozmen V; Pereira A; Garmendia ML; Scott C; Hipwell JH; Dickens C; Schüz J; Aribal ME; Bertrand K; Kwong A; Giles GG; Hopper J; Pérez Gómez B; Pollán M; Teo SH; Mariapun S; Taib NA; Lajous M; Lopez-Riduara R; Rice M; Romieu I; Flugelman AA; Ursin G; Qureshi S; Ma H; Lee E; Sirous R; Sirous M; Lee JW; Kim J; Salem D; Kamal R; Hartman M; Miao H; Chia KS; Nagata C; Vinayak S; Ndumia R; van Gils CH; Wanders JO; Peplonska B; Bukowska A; Allen S; Vinnicombe S; Moss S; Chiarelli AM; Linton L; Maskarinec G; Yaffe MJ; Boyd NF; Dos-Santos-Silva I; McCormack VA
Breast Cancer Res; 2016 Dec; 18(1):130. PubMed ID: 27993168
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Comparison of radiologist performance with photon-counting full-field digital mammography to conventional full-field digital mammography.
Cole EB; Toledano AY; Lundqvist M; Pisano ED
Acad Radiol; 2012 Aug; 19(8):916-22. PubMed ID: 22537503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Rates and causes of disagreement in interpretation of full-field digital mammography and film-screen mammography in a diagnostic setting.
Venta LA; Hendrick RE; Adler YT; DeLeon P; Mengoni PM; Scharl AM; Comstock CE; Hansen L; Kay N; Coveler A; Cutter G
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2001 May; 176(5):1241-8. PubMed ID: 11312188
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading.
Skaane P; Diekmann F; Balleyguier C; Diekmann S; Piguet JC; Young K; Abdelnoor M; Niklason L
Eur Radiol; 2008 Jun; 18(6):1134-43. PubMed ID: 18301902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type.
Cole EB; Pisano ED; Kistner EO; Muller KE; Brown ME; Feig SA; Jong RA; Maidment AD; Staiger MJ; Kuzmiak CM; Freimanis RI; Lesko N; Rosen EL; Walsh R; Williford M; Braeuning MP
Radiology; 2003 Jan; 226(1):153-60. PubMed ID: 12511684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Screen film vs full-field digital mammography: image quality, detectability and characterization of lesions.
Obenauer S; Luftner-Nagel S; von Heyden D; Munzel U; Baum F; Grabbe E
Eur Radiol; 2002 Jul; 12(7):1697-702. PubMed ID: 12111060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. 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]
39. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening.
Haas BM; Kalra V; Geisel J; Raghu M; Durand M; Philpotts LE
Radiology; 2013 Dec; 269(3):694-700. PubMed ID: 23901124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Low energy mammogram obtained in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is comparable to routine full-field digital mammography (FFDM).
Francescone MA; Jochelson MS; Dershaw DD; Sung JS; Hughes MC; Zheng J; Moskowitz C; Morris EA
Eur J Radiol; 2014 Aug; 83(8):1350-5. PubMed ID: 24932846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
