162 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21292867)
1. Focal cystic pancreatic lesions: assessing variation in radiologists' management recommendations.
Ip IK; Mortele KJ; Prevedello LM; Khorasani R
Radiology; 2011 Apr; 259(1):136-41. PubMed ID: 21292867
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Focal cystic pancreatic lesions: variability in radiologists' recommendations for follow-up imaging.
Macari M; Megibow AJ
Radiology; 2011 Apr; 259(1):20-3. PubMed ID: 21436094
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Variation in Radiologists' Follow-Up Imaging Recommendations for Small Cystic Pancreatic Lesions.
Kapoor N; Lacson R; Eskian M; Cochon L; Glazer D; Ip I; Khorasani R
J Am Coll Radiol; 2021 Oct; 18(10):1405-1414. PubMed ID: 34174205
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Focal Cystic Pancreatic Lesion Follow-up Recommendations After Publication of ACR White Paper on Managing Incidental Findings.
Bobbin MD; Ip IK; Sahni VA; Shinagare AB; Khorasani R
J Am Coll Radiol; 2017 Jun; 14(6):757-764. PubMed ID: 28476609
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. When does a radiologist's recommendation for follow-up result in high-cost imaging?
Lee SI; Krishnaraj A; Chatterji M; Dreyer KJ; Thrall JH; Hahn PF
Radiology; 2012 Feb; 262(2):544-9. PubMed ID: 22084210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Differentiating pancreatic cystic neoplasms from pancreatic pseudocysts at MR imaging: value of perceived internal debris.
Macari M; Finn ME; Bennett GL; Cho KC; Newman E; Hajdu CH; Babb JS
Radiology; 2009 Apr; 251(1):77-84. PubMed ID: 19332847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Prevalence of incidental pancreatic cysts in the adult population on MR imaging.
Lee KS; Sekhar A; Rofsky NM; Pedrosa I
Am J Gastroenterol; 2010 Sep; 105(9):2079-84. PubMed ID: 20354507
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Is gadolinium necessary for MRI follow-up evaluation of cystic lesions in the pancreas? Preliminary results.
Macari M; Lee T; Kim S; Jacobs S; Megibow AJ; Hajdu C; Babb J
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Jan; 192(1):159-64. PubMed ID: 19098196
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Indeterminate liver and renal lesions: comparison of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in providing a definitive diagnosis and impact on recommendations for additional imaging.
Margolis NE; Shaver CM; Rosenkrantz AB
J Comput Assist Tomogr; 2013; 37(6):882-6. PubMed ID: 24270109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The disproportionate effects of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 on radiologists' private office MRI and CT practices compared with those of other physicians.
Levin DC; Rao VM; Parker L; Frangos AJ
J Am Coll Radiol; 2009 Sep; 6(9):620-5. PubMed ID: 19720356
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Natural language processing using online analytic processing for assessing recommendations in radiology reports.
Dang PA; Kalra MK; Blake MA; Schultz TJ; Stout M; Lemay PR; Freshman DJ; Halpern EF; Dreyer KJ
J Am Coll Radiol; 2008 Mar; 5(3):197-204. PubMed ID: 18312968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Management of cystic pancreatic masses.
Op de Beeck B; Spinhoven M; Corthouts B; de Jongh K; Salgado R; Parizel P
JBR-BTR; 2007; 90(6):482-6. PubMed ID: 18376760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Pancreatic cysts 3 cm or smaller: how aggressive should treatment be?
Sahani DV; Saokar A; Hahn PF; Brugge WR; Fernandez-Del Castillo C
Radiology; 2006 Mar; 238(3):912-9. PubMed ID: 16439566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Delayed Growth in Incidental Pancreatic Cysts: Are the Current American College of Radiology Recommendations for Follow-up Appropriate?
Brook OR; Beddy P; Pahade J; Couto C; Brennan I; Patel P; Brook A; Pedrosa I
Radiology; 2016 Mar; 278(3):752-61. PubMed ID: 26348231
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Correlation of the Strength of Recommendations for Additional Imaging to Adherence Rate and Diagnostic Yield.
Harvey HB; Wu CC; Gilman MD; Vartanians V; Halpern EF; Pandharipande PV; Shepard JO; Alkasab TK
J Am Coll Radiol; 2015 Oct; 12(10):1016-22. PubMed ID: 26092592
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Followup imaging after urological imaging studies: comparison of radiologist recommendation and urologist practice.
Cho JS; Fulgham P; Clark A; Kavoussi L
J Urol; 2010 Jul; 184(1):254-7. PubMed ID: 20483146
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Screening breast MR imaging: comparison of interpretation of baseline and annual follow-up studies.
Abramovici G; Mainiero MB
Radiology; 2011 Apr; 259(1):85-91. PubMed ID: 21285337
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Renal involvement in patients with autoimmune pancreatitis: CT and MR imaging findings.
Takahashi N; Kawashima A; Fletcher JG; Chari ST
Radiology; 2007 Mar; 242(3):791-801. PubMed ID: 17229877
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Does radiologist recommendation for follow-up with the same imaging modality contribute substantially to high-cost imaging volume?
Lee SI; Saokar A; Dreyer KJ; Weilburg JB; Thrall JH; Hahn PF
Radiology; 2007 Mar; 242(3):857-64. PubMed ID: 17325070
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Patterns of misinterpretation of adnexal masses on CT and MR in an academic radiology department.
Asch E; Levine D; Pedrosa I; Hecht JL; Kruskal J
Acad Radiol; 2009 Aug; 16(8):969-80. PubMed ID: 19380241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
