124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23884734)
21. Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography.
Durand MA; Haas BM; Yao X; Geisel JL; Raghu M; Hooley RJ; Horvath LJ; Philpotts LE
Radiology; 2015 Jan; 274(1):85-92. PubMed ID: 25188431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Trends in recall, biopsy, and positive biopsy rates for screening mammography in an academic practice.
Gur D; Wallace LP; Klym AH; Hardesty LA; Abrams GS; Shah R; Sumkin JH
Radiology; 2005 May; 235(2):396-401. PubMed ID: 15770039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Patient and Radiologist Characteristics Associated With Accuracy of Two Types of Diagnostic Mammograms.
Jackson SL; Abraham L; Miglioretti DL; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Onega T; Carney PA; Sickles EA; Elmore JG
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Aug; 205(2):456-63. PubMed ID: 26204300
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Practice Patterns Following 2011 FDA Approval: A Survey of Breast Imaging Radiologists.
Gao Y; Babb JS; Toth HK; Moy L; Heller SL
Acad Radiol; 2017 Aug; 24(8):947-953. PubMed ID: 28188043
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Digital mammography: its impact on recall rates and cancer detection rates in a small community-based radiology practice.
Vernacchia FS; Pena ZG
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Aug; 193(2):582-5. PubMed ID: 19620459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. Interpretation time of computer-aided detection at screening mammography.
Tchou PM; Haygood TM; Atkinson EN; Stephens TW; Davis PL; Arribas EM; Geiser WR; Whitman GJ
Radiology; 2010 Oct; 257(1):40-6. PubMed ID: 20679448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Recommendation for short-interval follow-up examinations after a probably benign assessment: is clinical practice consistent with BI-RADS guidance?
Bowles EJ; Sickles EA; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Elmore JG
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Apr; 194(4):1152-9. PubMed ID: 20308525
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Screening Digital Mammography Recall Rate: Does It Change with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Experience?
DiPrete O; Lourenco AP; Baird GL; Mainiero MB
Radiology; 2018 Mar; 286(3):838-844. PubMed ID: 29173123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Batch Reading and Interrupted Interpretation of Digital Screening Mammograms Without and With Tomosynthesis.
Cohen EO; Lesslie M; Weaver O; Phalak K; Tso H; Perry R; Leung JWT
J Am Coll Radiol; 2021 Feb; 18(2):280-293. PubMed ID: 32861601
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Availability of prior mammograms affects incomplete report rates in mobile screening mammography.
Roubidoux MA; Shih-Pei Wu P; Nolte ELR; Begay JA; Joe AI
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2018 Oct; 171(3):667-673. PubMed ID: 29951970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Effect of observing change from comparison mammograms on performance of screening mammography in a large community-based population.
Yankaskas BC; May RC; Matuszewski J; Bowling JM; Jarman MP; Schroeder BF
Radiology; 2011 Dec; 261(3):762-70. PubMed ID: 22031709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Comparison of Resource Utilization and Clinical Outcomes Following Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography: Findings From a Learning Health System.
Alsheik NH; Dabbous F; Pohlman SK; Troeger KM; Gliklich RE; Donadio GM; Su Z; Menon V; Conant EF
Acad Radiol; 2019 May; 26(5):597-605. PubMed ID: 30057195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. Breast cancer screening for older women in a primary care practice.
Tishler J; McCarthy EP; Rind DM; Hamel MB
J Am Geriatr Soc; 2000 Aug; 48(8):961-6. PubMed ID: 10968302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Screening mammography-detected cancers: sensitivity of a computer-aided detection system applied to full-field digital mammograms.
Yang SK; Moon WK; Cho N; Park JS; Cha JH; Kim SM; Kim SJ; Im JG
Radiology; 2007 Jul; 244(1):104-11. PubMed ID: 17507722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. 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]
40. Mammographic interpretive volume and diagnostic mammogram interpretation performance in community practice.
Haneuse S; Buist DS; Miglioretti DL; Anderson ML; Carney PA; Onega T; Geller BM; Kerlikowske K; Rosenberg RD; Yankaskas BC; Elmore JG; Taplin SH; Smith RA; Sickles EA
Radiology; 2012 Jan; 262(1):69-79. PubMed ID: 22106351
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
