332 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21216324)
1. Optimal screening mammography reading volumes; evidence from real life in the East Midlands region of the NHS Breast Screening Programme.
Cornford E; Reed J; Murphy A; Bennett R; Evans A
Clin Radiol; 2011 Feb; 66(2):103-7. PubMed ID: 21216324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Film reading in the East Midlands Breast Screening Programme -- are we missing opportunities for earlier diagnosis?
Jenkins J; Murphy AE; Edmondson-Jones M; Sibbering DM; Turnbull AE
Clin Radiol; 2014 Apr; 69(4):385-90. PubMed ID: 24411823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program.
Kan L; Olivotto IA; Warren Burhenne LJ; Sickles EA; Coldman AJ
Radiology; 2000 May; 215(2):563-7. PubMed ID: 10796940
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A comparison of cancer detection rates achieved by breast cancer screening programmes by number of readers, for one and two view mammography: results from the UK National Health Service breast screening programme.
Blanks RG; Wallis MG; Moss SM
J Med Screen; 1998; 5(4):195-201. PubMed ID: 9934650
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Computer-aided detection in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Programme: prospective study.
Khoo LA; Taylor P; Given-Wilson RM
Radiology; 2005 Nov; 237(2):444-9. PubMed ID: 16244252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Optimum screening mammography reading volumes: evidence from the NHS Breast Screening Programme.
Cornford E; Cheung S; Press M; Kearins O; Taylor-Phillips S
Eur Radiol; 2021 Sep; 31(9):6909-6915. PubMed ID: 33630161
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Can the NHS Breast Screening Programme afford not to double read screening mammograms?
Liston JC; Dall BJ
Clin Radiol; 2003 Jun; 58(6):474-7. PubMed ID: 12788317
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Tailored Breast Screening Trial (TBST)].
Paci E; Mantellini P; Giorgi Rossi P; Falini P; Puliti D;
Epidemiol Prev; 2013; 37(4-5):317-27. PubMed ID: 24293498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Breast screening: PERFORMS identifies key mammographic training needs.
Scott HJ; Gale AG
Br J Radiol; 2006 Dec; 79 Spec No 2():S127-33. PubMed ID: 17209118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom.
Smith-Bindman R; Chu PW; Miglioretti DL; Sickles EA; Blanks R; Ballard-Barbash R; Bobo JK; Lee NC; Wallis MG; Patnick J; Kerlikowske K
JAMA; 2003 Oct; 290(16):2129-37. PubMed ID: 14570948
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program.
Hambly NM; McNicholas MM; Phelan N; Hargaden GC; O'Doherty A; Flanagan FL
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Oct; 193(4):1010-8. PubMed ID: 19770323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Observer variability in cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening in a study of two versus one view mammography.
Blanks RG; Wallis MG; Given-Wilson RM
J Med Screen; 1999; 6(3):152-8. PubMed ID: 10572847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effect of recall rate on earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch performance indicators.
Otten JD; Karssemeijer N; Hendriks JH; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; Verbeek AL; de Koning HJ; Holland R
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2005 May; 97(10):748-54. PubMed ID: 15900044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Nation-wide data on screening performance during the transition to digital mammography: observations in 6 million screens.
van Luijt PA; Fracheboud J; Heijnsdijk EA; den Heeten GJ; de Koning HJ;
Eur J Cancer; 2013 Nov; 49(16):3517-25. PubMed ID: 23871248
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data.
Vinnicombe S; Pinto Pereira SM; McCormack VA; Shiel S; Perry N; Dos Santos Silva IM
Radiology; 2009 May; 251(2):347-58. PubMed ID: 19401569
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms.
Skaane P; Kshirsagar A; Stapleton S; Young K; Castellino RA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Feb; 188(2):377-84. PubMed ID: 17242245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
