166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20729460)
1. Positive predictive value of mammography: comparison of interpretations of screening and diagnostic images by the same radiologist and by different radiologists.
Halladay JR; Yankaskas BC; Bowling JM; Alexander C
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Sep; 195(3):782-5. PubMed ID: 20729460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Do mammographic technologists affect radiologists' diagnostic mammography interpretative performance?
Henderson LM; Benefield T; Bowling JM; Durham DD; Marsh MW; Schroeder BF; Yankaskas BC
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Apr; 204(4):903-8. PubMed ID: 25794085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.
Buist DS; Anderson ML; Smith RA; Carney PA; Miglioretti DL; Monsees BS; Sickles EA; Taplin SH; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Onega TL
Radiology; 2014 Nov; 273(2):351-64. PubMed ID: 24960110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy.
Elmore JG; Jackson SL; Abraham L; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Kerlikowske K; Onega T; Rosenberg RD; Sickles EA; Buist DS
Radiology; 2009 Dec; 253(3):641-51. PubMed ID: 19864507
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Patient and Radiologist Characteristics Associated With Accuracy of Two Types of Diagnostic Mammograms.
Jackson SL; Abraham L; Miglioretti DL; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Onega T; Carney PA; Sickles EA; Elmore JG
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Aug; 205(2):456-63. PubMed ID: 26204300
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Radiologists' performance and their enjoyment of interpreting screening mammograms.
Geller BM; Bowles EJ; Sohng HY; Brenner RJ; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Elmore JG
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Feb; 192(2):361-9. PubMed ID: 19155395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Does litigation influence medical practice? The influence of community radiologists' medical malpractice perceptions and experience on screening mammography.
Elmore JG; Taplin SH; Barlow WE; Cutter GR; D'Orsi CJ; Hendrick RE; Abraham LA; Fosse JS; Carney PA
Radiology; 2005 Jul; 236(1):37-46. PubMed ID: 15987961
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Disparities in Same-Day Diagnostic Imaging in Breast Cancer Screening: Impact of an Immediate-Read Screening Mammography Program Implemented During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Dontchos BN; Achibiri J; Mercaldo SF; Wang GX; Lamb LR; Miles RC; Narayan AK; Lehman CD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2022 Feb; 218(2):270-278. PubMed ID: 34494449
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Variability of interpretive accuracy among diagnostic mammography facilities.
Jackson SL; Taplin SH; Sickles EA; Abraham L; Barlow WE; Carney PA; Geller B; Berns EA; Cutter GR; Elmore JG
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2009 Jun; 101(11):814-27. PubMed ID: 19470953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships.
Esserman L; Cowley H; Eberle C; Kirkpatrick A; Chang S; Berbaum K; Gale A
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2002 Mar; 94(5):369-75. PubMed ID: 11880475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs.
Elmore JG; Nakano CY; Koepsell TD; Desnick LM; D'Orsi CJ; Ransohoff DF
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2003 Sep; 95(18):1384-93. PubMed ID: 13130114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Factors associated with imaging and procedural events used to detect breast cancer after screening mammography.
Carney PA; Abraham LA; Miglioretti DL; Yabroff KR; Sickles EA; Buist DS; Kasales CJ; Geller BM; Rosenberg RD; Dignan MB; Weaver DL; Kerlikowske K;
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Feb; 188(2):385-92. PubMed ID: 17242246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Mammographic interpretive volume and diagnostic mammogram interpretation performance in community practice.
Haneuse S; Buist DS; Miglioretti DL; Anderson ML; Carney PA; Onega T; Geller BM; Kerlikowske K; Rosenberg RD; Yankaskas BC; Elmore JG; Taplin SH; Smith RA; Sickles EA
Radiology; 2012 Jan; 262(1):69-79. PubMed ID: 22106351
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Recommendation for short-interval follow-up examinations after a probably benign assessment: is clinical practice consistent with BI-RADS guidance?
Bowles EJ; Sickles EA; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Elmore JG
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Apr; 194(4):1152-9. PubMed ID: 20308525
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Diagnostic mammography: identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria.
Carney PA; Parikh J; Sickles EA; Feig SA; Monsees B; Bassett LW; Smith RA; Rosenberg R; Ichikawa L; Wallace J; Tran K; Miglioretti DL
Radiology; 2013 May; 267(2):359-67. PubMed ID: 23297329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practice.
Henderson LM; Benefield T; Marsh MW; Schroeder BF; Durham DD; Yankaskas BC; Bowling JM
Acad Radiol; 2015 Mar; 22(3):278-89. PubMed ID: 25435185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Screening mammography in community practice: positive predictive value of abnormal findings and yield of follow-up diagnostic procedures.
Brown ML; Houn F; Sickles EA; Kessler LG
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Dec; 165(6):1373-7. PubMed ID: 7484568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
