165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20729460)
21. 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]
22. Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography.
Miglioretti DL; Smith-Bindman R; Abraham L; Brenner RJ; Carney PA; Bowles EJ; Buist DS; Elmore JG
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Dec; 99(24):1854-63. PubMed ID: 18073379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Effect of previous benign breast biopsy on the interpretive performance of subsequent screening mammography.
Taplin SH; Abraham L; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Buist DS; Smith-Bindman R; Lehman C; Weaver D; Carney PA; Barlow WE
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2010 Jul; 102(14):1040-51. PubMed ID: 20601590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. 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]
26. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms.
Elmore JG; Wells CK; Lee CH; Howard DH; Feinstein AR
N Engl J Med; 1994 Dec; 331(22):1493-9. PubMed ID: 7969300
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria for screening mammography.
Carney PA; Sickles EA; Monsees BS; Bassett LW; Brenner RJ; Feig SA; Smith RA; Rosenberg RD; Bogart TA; Browning S; Barry JW; Kelly MM; Tran KA; Miglioretti DL
Radiology; 2010 May; 255(2):354-61. PubMed ID: 20413750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Screening Mammography With and Without Computer-Aided Detection.
Lehman CD; Wellman RD; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Tosteson AN; Miglioretti DL;
JAMA Intern Med; 2015 Nov; 175(11):1828-37. PubMed ID: 26414882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography in a community practice: are there differences between specialists and general radiologists?
Leung JW; Margolin FR; Dee KE; Jacobs RP; Denny SR; Schrumpf JD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Jan; 188(1):236-41. PubMed ID: 17179372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Frequency and Determinants of a Short-Interval Follow-up Recommendation After an Abnormal Screening Mammogram.
Pelletier E; Daigle JM; Defay F; Major D; Guertin MH; Brisson J
Can Assoc Radiol J; 2016 Nov; 67(4):322-329. PubMed ID: 27209218
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. "Memory effect" in observer performance studies of mammograms.
Hardesty LA; Ganott MA; Hakim CM; Cohen CS; Clearfield RJ; Gur D
Acad Radiol; 2005 Mar; 12(3):286-90. PubMed ID: 15766687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. When radiologists perform best: the learning curve in screening mammogram interpretation.
Miglioretti DL; Gard CC; Carney PA; Onega TL; Buist DS; Sickles EA; Kerlikowske K; Rosenberg RD; Yankaskas BC; Geller BM; Elmore JG
Radiology; 2009 Dec; 253(3):632-40. PubMed ID: 19789234
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Organized breast screening programs in Canada: effect of radiologist reading volumes on outcomes.
Coldman AJ; Major D; Doyle GP; D'yachkova Y; Phillips N; Onysko J; Shumak R; Smith NE; Wadden N
Radiology; 2006 Mar; 238(3):809-15. PubMed ID: 16424236
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Screening Digital Mammography Recall Rate: Does It Change with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Experience?
DiPrete O; Lourenco AP; Baird GL; Mainiero MB
Radiology; 2018 Mar; 286(3):838-844. PubMed ID: 29173123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Screening mammography recall rate: does practice site matter?
Rothschild J; Lourenco AP; Mainiero MB
Radiology; 2013 Nov; 269(2):348-53. PubMed ID: 23884734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Diagnostic Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
Sprague BL; Arao RF; Miglioretti DL; Henderson LM; Buist DS; Onega T; Rauscher GH; Lee JM; Tosteson AN; Kerlikowske K; Lehman CD;
Radiology; 2017 Apr; 283(1):59-69. PubMed ID: 28244803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. The inter-observer variability of breast density scoring between mammography technologists and breast radiologists and its effect on the rate of adjuvant ultrasound.
Mazor RD; Savir A; Gheorghiu D; Weinstein Y; Abadi-Korek I; Shabshin N
Eur J Radiol; 2016 May; 85(5):957-62. PubMed ID: 27130056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Breast cancer yield for screening mammographic examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up.
Kerlikowske K; Smith-Bindman R; Abraham LA; Lehman CD; Yankaskas BC; Ballard-Barbash R; Barlow WE; Voeks JH; Geller BM; Carney PA; Sickles EA
Radiology; 2005 Mar; 234(3):684-92. PubMed ID: 15734926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
