276 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23286480)
1. Peer reviewing of screening mammography in Taiwan: its reliability and the improvement.
Pan HB; Hsu GC; Yang TL; Huang JS; Chou CP; Liang HL; Lee SK; Chou YH; Li HJ; Wong KF
Chin Med J (Engl); 2013 Jan; 126(1):68-71. PubMed ID: 23286480
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Reassessment of breast cancers missed during routine screening mammography: a community-based study.
Yankaskas BC; Schell MJ; Bird RE; Desrochers DA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2001 Sep; 177(3):535-41. PubMed ID: 11517043
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Can missed breast cancer be recognized by regular peer auditing on screening mammography?
Pan HB; Yang TL; Hsu GC; Chiang CL; Huang JS; Chou CP; Wang YC; Liang HL; Lee SK; Chou YH; Wong KF
J Chin Med Assoc; 2012 Sep; 75(9):464-7. PubMed ID: 22989543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists.
Sickles EA; Wolverton DE; Dee KE
Radiology; 2002 Sep; 224(3):861-9. PubMed ID: 12202726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The outcome of a quality-controlled mammography screening program: experience from a population-based study in Taiwan.
Pan HB; Wong KF; Yang TL; Hsu GC; Chou CP; Huang JS; Lee SK; Chou YH; Chiang CL; Liang HL
J Chin Med Assoc; 2014 Oct; 77(10):531-4. PubMed ID: 25103986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Interval breast cancers: absolute and proportional incidence and blinded review in a community mammographic screening program.
Carbonaro LA; Azzarone A; Paskeh BB; Brambilla G; Brunelli S; Calori A; Caumo F; Malerba P; Menicagli L; Sconfienza LM; Vadalà G; Brambilla G; Fantini L; Ciatto S; Sardanelli F
Eur J Radiol; 2014 Feb; 83(2):e84-91. PubMed ID: 24369953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Incorporation of the technologist's opinion for arbitration of discrepant assessments among radiologists at screening mammography.
Coolen AMP; Lameijer JRC; Voogd AC; Strobbe LJ; Louwman MWJ; Tjan-Heijnen VCG; Duijm LEM
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2018 Aug; 171(1):143-149. PubMed ID: 29730729
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Analysis of 172 subtle findings on prior normal mammograms in women with breast cancer detected at follow-up screening.
Ikeda DM; Birdwell RL; O'Shaughnessy KF; Brenner RJ; Sickles EA
Radiology; 2003 Feb; 226(2):494-503. PubMed ID: 12563145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography.
Rosenberg RD; Yankaskas BC; Abraham LA; Sickles EA; Lehman CD; Geller BM; Carney PA; Kerlikowske K; Buist DS; Weaver DL; Barlow WE; Ballard-Barbash R
Radiology; 2006 Oct; 241(1):55-66. PubMed ID: 16990671
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effect of adding screening ultrasonography to screening mammography on patient recall and cancer detection rates: a retrospective study in Japan.
Tohno E; Umemoto T; Sasaki K; Morishima I; Ueno E
Eur J Radiol; 2013 Aug; 82(8):1227-30. PubMed ID: 23465737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study.
Ciatto S; Houssami N; Bernardi D; Caumo F; Pellegrini M; Brunelli S; Tuttobene P; Bricolo P; Fantò C; Valentini M; Montemezzi S; Macaskill P
Lancet Oncol; 2013 Jun; 14(7):583-9. PubMed ID: 23623721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practice.
Henderson LM; Benefield T; Marsh MW; Schroeder BF; Durham DD; Yankaskas BC; Bowling JM
Acad Radiol; 2015 Mar; 22(3):278-89. PubMed ID: 25435185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Volume of screening mammography and performance in the Quebec population-based Breast Cancer Screening Program.
Théberge I; Hébert-Croteau N; Langlois A; Major D; Brisson J
CMAJ; 2005 Jan; 172(2):195-9. PubMed ID: 15655240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography.
Warren Burhenne LJ; Wood SA; D'Orsi CJ; Feig SA; Kopans DB; O'Shaughnessy KF; Sickles EA; Tabar L; Vyborny CJ; Castellino RA
Radiology; 2000 May; 215(2):554-62. PubMed ID: 10796939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Assessment of diagnostic accuracy of mammography carried out for secondary prevention. Results of a test with a sample caseload conducted by 75 Italian radiologists].
Morrone D; Giorgi D; Ciatto S; Frigerio A; Catarzi S; Rosselli Del Turco M
Radiol Med; 2001; 101(1-2):44-7. PubMed ID: 11360752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
