These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

196 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22130089)

  • 1. Are radiologists' goals for mammography accuracy consistent with published recommendations?
    Jackson SL; Cook AJ; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Geller BM; Onega T; Rosenberg RD; Brenner RJ; Elmore JG
    Acad Radiol; 2012 Mar; 19(3):289-95. PubMed ID: 22130089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Radiologists' attitudes and use of mammography audit reports.
    Elmore JG; Aiello Bowles EJ; Geller B; Oster NV; Carney PA; Miglioretti DL; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Sickles EA; Onega T; Rosenberg RD; Yankaskas BC
    Acad Radiol; 2010 Jun; 17(6):752-60. PubMed ID: 20457418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
    Lehman CD; Arao RF; Sprague BL; Lee JM; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Henderson LM; Onega T; Tosteson AN; Rauscher GH; Miglioretti DL
    Radiology; 2017 Apr; 283(1):49-58. PubMed ID: 27918707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Radiologists' perceptions of computer aided detection versus double reading for mammography interpretation.
    Onega T; Aiello Bowles EJ; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Kerlikowske K; Sickles EA; Elmore JG
    Acad Radiol; 2010 Oct; 17(10):1217-26. PubMed ID: 20832024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Using a tailored web-based intervention to set goals to reduce unnecessary recall.
    Carney PA; Bowles EJ; Sickles EA; Geller BM; Feig SA; Jackson S; Brown D; Cook A; Yankaskas BC; Miglioretti DL; Elmore JG
    Acad Radiol; 2011 Apr; 18(4):495-503. PubMed ID: 21251856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Radiologist interpretive volume and breast cancer screening accuracy in a Canadian organized screening program.
    Théberge I; Chang SL; Vandal N; Daigle JM; Guertin MH; Pelletier E; Brisson J
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2014 Mar; 106(3):djt461. PubMed ID: 24598715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States.
    Buist DS; Anderson ML; Haneuse SJ; Sickles EA; Smith RA; Carney PA; Taplin SH; Rosenberg RD; Geller BM; Onega TL; Monsees BS; Bassett LW; Yankaskas BC; Elmore JG; Kerlikowske K; Miglioretti DL
    Radiology; 2011 Apr; 259(1):72-84. PubMed ID: 21343539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Radiologist Characteristics Associated with Interpretive Performance of Screening Mammography: A National Mammography Database (NMD) Study.
    Lee CS; Moy L; Hughes D; Golden D; Bhargavan-Chatfield M; Hemingway J; Geras A; Duszak R; Rosenkrantz AB
    Radiology; 2021 Sep; 300(3):518-528. PubMed ID: 34156300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Feasibility and satisfaction with a tailored web-based audit intervention for recalibrating radiologists' thresholds for conducting additional work-up.
    Carney PA; Geller BM; Sickles EA; Miglioretti DL; Aiello Bowles EJ; Abraham L; Feig SA; Brown D; Cook AJ; Yankaskas BC; Elmore JG
    Acad Radiol; 2011 Mar; 18(3):369-76. PubMed ID: 21193335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Mammographic interpretation: radiologists' ability to accurately estimate their performance and compare it with that of their peers.
    Cook AJ; Elmore JG; Zhu W; Jackson SL; Carney PA; Flowers C; Onega T; Geller B; Rosenberg RD; Miglioretti DL
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Sep; 199(3):695-702. PubMed ID: 22915414
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Reality check: perceived versus actual performance of community mammographers.
    Fenton JJ; Egger J; Carney PA; Cutter G; D'Orsi C; Sickles EA; Fosse J; Abraham L; Taplin SH; Barlow W; Hendrick RE; Elmore JG
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Jul; 187(1):42-6. PubMed ID: 16794153
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.