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 *

150 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2326455)

  • 1. Medical audit of a rapid-throughput mammography screening practice: methodology and results of 27,114 examinations.
    Sickles EA; Ominsky SH; Sollitto RA; Galvin HB; Monticciolo DL
    Radiology; 1990 May; 175(2):323-7. PubMed ID: 2326455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Medical audit of diagnostic mammography examinations: comparison with screening outcomes obtained concurrently.
    Dee KE; Sickles EA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2001 Mar; 176(3):729-33. PubMed ID: 11222214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Ability of mammography to reveal nonpalpable breast cancer in women with palpable breast masses.
    Rosen EL; Sickles E; Keating D
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1999 Feb; 172(2):309-12. PubMed ID: 9930773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Improvement in mammography interpretation skills in a community radiology practice after dedicated teaching courses: 2-year medical audit of 38,633 cases.
    Linver MN; Paster SB; Rosenberg RD; Key CR; Stidley CA; King WV
    Radiology; 1992 Jul; 184(1):39-43. PubMed ID: 1609100
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Mammography in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.
    Stomper PC; Gelman RS
    Hematol Oncol Clin North Am; 1989 Dec; 3(4):611-40. PubMed ID: 2691492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A private breast imaging practice: medical audit of 25,788 screening and 1,077 diagnostic examinations.
    Robertson CL
    Radiology; 1993 Apr; 187(1):75-9. PubMed ID: 8451440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Community-based mammography practice: services, charges, and interpretation methods.
    Hendrick RE; Cutter GR; Berns EA; Nakano C; Egger J; Carney PA; Abraham L; Taplin SH; D'Orsi CJ; Barlow W; Elmore JG
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Feb; 184(2):433-8. PubMed ID: 15671359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Interpreting data from audits when screening and diagnostic mammography outcomes are combined.
    Sohlich RE; Sickles EA; Burnside ES; Dee KE
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Mar; 178(3):681-6. PubMed ID: 11856698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Screening mammography: value in women 35-39 years old.
    Liberman L; Dershaw DD; Deutch BM; Thaler HT; Lippin BS
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1993 Jul; 161(1):53-6. PubMed ID: 8517320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The comparative value of mammographic screening for women 40-49 years old versus women 50-64 years old.
    Curpen BN; Sickles EA; Sollitto RA; Ominsky SH; Galvin HB; Frankel SD
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 May; 164(5):1099-103. PubMed ID: 7717212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer.
    Kerlikowske K; Grady D; Barclay J; Sickles EA; Eaton A; Ernster V
    JAMA; 1993 Nov; 270(20):2444-50. PubMed ID: 8230621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Clinical results of specialized prophylactic mammography screenings of industrial workers].
    Orlov OA
    Vopr Onkol; 2002; 48(1):95-8. PubMed ID: 12101578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Needle localization for nonpalpable breast lesions.
    Sailors DM; Crabtree JD; Land RL; Rose WB; Burns RP; Barker DE
    Am Surg; 1994 Mar; 60(3):186-9. PubMed ID: 8116978
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Mammography outcomes in a practice setting by age: prognostic factors, sensitivity, and positive biopsy rate.
    Linver MN; Paster SB
    J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 1997; (22):113-7. PubMed ID: 9709286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations.
    Kolb TM; Lichy J; Newhouse JH
    Radiology; 2002 Oct; 225(1):165-75. PubMed ID: 12355001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Adjusting mammography--audit recommendations in a lower-incidence Taiwanese population.
    Chen CY; Tzeng WS; Tsai CC; Mak CW; Chen CH; Chou MC
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2008 Sep; 5(9):978-85. PubMed ID: 18755438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Initial versus subsequent screening mammography: comparison of findings and their prognostic significance.
    Frankel SD; Sickles EA; Curpen BN; Sollitto RA; Ominsky SH; Galvin HB
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 May; 164(5):1107-9. PubMed ID: 7717214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Quality assurance audits of community screening mammography practices: availability of active follow-up for data collection and outcome assessment.
    Brown ML; Houn F
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Oct; 163(4):825-9. PubMed ID: 8092017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Frequency and determinants of screening for breast cancer in primary care group practice.
    Love RR; Brown RL; Davis JE; Baumann LJ; Fontana SA; Sanner LA
    Arch Intern Med; 1993 Sep; 153(18):2113-7. PubMed ID: 8379802
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.