124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23884734)
1. Screening mammography recall rate: does practice site matter?
Rothschild J; Lourenco AP; Mainiero MB
Radiology; 2013 Nov; 269(2):348-53. PubMed ID: 23884734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Recall and detection rates in screening mammography.
Gur D; Sumkin JH; Hardesty LA; Clearfield RJ; Cohen CS; Ganott MA; Hakim CM; Harris KM; Poller WR; Shah R; Wallace LP; Rockette HE
Cancer; 2004 Apr; 100(8):1590-4. PubMed ID: 15073844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Increased Cancer Detection Rate and Variations in the Recall Rate Resulting from Implementation of 3D Digital Breast Tomosynthesis into a Population-based Screening Program.
Sharpe RE; Venkataraman S; Phillips J; Dialani V; Fein-Zachary VJ; Prakash S; Slanetz PJ; Mehta TS
Radiology; 2016 Mar; 278(3):698-706. PubMed ID: 26458206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effect of Arrival of Prior Mammograms on Recall Negation for Screening Mammograms Performed With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in a Clinical Setting.
Hardesty LA; Lind KE; Gutierrez EJ
J Am Coll Radiol; 2018 Sep; 15(9):1293-1299. PubMed ID: 30196816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system.
Gur D; Sumkin JH; Rockette HE; Ganott M; Hakim C; Hardesty L; Poller WR; Shah R; Wallace L
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2004 Feb; 96(3):185-90. PubMed ID: 14759985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Prioritizing Screening Mammograms for Immediate Interpretation and Diagnostic Evaluation on the Basis of Risk for Recall.
Ho TH; Bissell MCS; Lee CI; Lee JM; Sprague BL; Tosteson ANA; Wernli KJ; Henderson LM; Kerlikowske K; Miglioretti DL
J Am Coll Radiol; 2023 Mar; 20(3):299-310. PubMed ID: 36273501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Time trends in radiologists' interpretive performance at screening mammography from the community-based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 1996-2004.
Ichikawa LE; Barlow WE; Anderson ML; Taplin SH; Geller BM; Brenner RJ;
Radiology; 2010 Jul; 256(1):74-82. PubMed ID: 20505059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Patient, Radiologist, and Examination Characteristics Affecting Screening Mammography Recall Rates in a Large Academic Practice.
Giess CS; Wang A; Ip IK; Lacson R; Pourjabbar S; Khorasani R
J Am Coll Radiol; 2019 Apr; 16(4 Pt A):411-418. PubMed ID: 30037704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening.
Haas BM; Kalra V; Geisel J; Raghu M; Durand M; Philpotts LE
Radiology; 2013 Dec; 269(3):694-700. PubMed ID: 23901124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of recall and cancer detection rates for immediate versus batch interpretation of screening mammograms.
Ghate SV; Soo MS; Baker JA; Walsh R; Gimenez EI; Rosen EL
Radiology; 2005 Apr; 235(1):31-5. PubMed ID: 15798165
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography Recall and False-Positive Rates by Time of Day and Reader Experience.
Bernstein MH; Baird GL; Lourenco AP
Radiology; 2022 Apr; 303(1):63-68. PubMed ID: 35014905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evidence-based target recall rates for screening mammography.
Schell MJ; Yankaskas BC; Ballard-Barbash R; Qaqish BF; Barlow WE; Rosenberg RD; Smith-Bindman R
Radiology; 2007 Jun; 243(3):681-9. PubMed ID: 17517927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effect of transition to digital mammography on clinical outcomes.
Glynn CG; Farria DM; Monsees BS; Salcman JT; Wiele KN; Hildebolt CF
Radiology; 2011 Sep; 260(3):664-70. PubMed ID: 21788529
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Factors Impacting False Positive Recall in Screening Mammography.
Honig EL; Mullen LA; Amir T; Alvin MD; Jones MK; Ambinder EB; Falomo ET; Harvey SC
Acad Radiol; 2019 Nov; 26(11):1505-1512. PubMed ID: 30772138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Patterns of Screening Recall Behavior Among Subspecialty Breast Radiologists.
Giess CS; Ip IK; Licaros A; Chikarmane SA; Cochon LR; Lacson R; Khorasani R
Acad Radiol; 2023 May; 30(5):798-806. PubMed ID: 35803888
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
