124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23884734)
41. Impact of Immediate Interpretation of Screening Tomosynthesis Mammography on Performance Metrics.
Winkler NS; Freer P; Anzai Y; Hu N; Stein M
Acad Radiol; 2019 Feb; 26(2):210-214. PubMed ID: 29748047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Positive predictive value of mammography: comparison of interpretations of screening and diagnostic images by the same radiologist and by different radiologists.
Halladay JR; Yankaskas BC; Bowling JM; Alexander C
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2010 Sep; 195(3):782-5. PubMed ID: 20729460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Impact of Breast Density Notification Legislation on Radiologists' Practices of Reporting Breast Density: A Multi-State Study.
Bahl M; Baker JA; Bhargavan-Chatfield M; Brandt EK; Ghate SV
Radiology; 2016 Sep; 280(3):701-6. PubMed ID: 27018643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Clinical Performance of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography Combined with Tomosynthesis in a Large Screening Population.
Aujero MP; Gavenonis SC; Benjamin R; Zhang Z; Holt JS
Radiology; 2017 Apr; 283(1):70-76. PubMed ID: 28221096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Factors associated with breast screening radiologists' annual mammogram reading volume in Italy.
Morrone D; Giordano L; Artuso F; Bernardi D; Fedato C; Frigerio A; Giorgi D; Naldoni C; Saguatti G; Severi D; Taffurelli M; Terribile D; Ventura L; Bucchi L
Radiol Med; 2016 Jul; 121(7):557-63. PubMed ID: 27033475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Compliance With Screening Mammography Guidelines After a False-Positive Mammogram.
Hardesty LA; Lind KE; Gutierrez EJ
J Am Coll Radiol; 2016 Sep; 13(9):1032-8. PubMed ID: 27233908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography.
Miglioretti DL; Smith-Bindman R; Abraham L; Brenner RJ; Carney PA; Bowles EJ; Buist DS; Elmore JG
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Dec; 99(24):1854-63. PubMed ID: 18073379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Multicenter Evaluation of Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Combination with Synthetic versus Digital Mammography.
Zuckerman SP; Sprague BL; Weaver DL; Herschorn SD; Conant EF
Radiology; 2020 Dec; 297(3):545-553. PubMed ID: 33048032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Assessing the Recall Rate for Screening Mammography: Comparing the Medicare Hospital Compare Dataset With the National Mammography Database.
Lee CS; Parise C; Burleson J; Seidenwurm D
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Jul; 211(1):127-132. PubMed ID: 29792737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. 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]
51. Effect of the Availability of Prior Full-Field Digital Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images on the Interpretation of Mammograms.
Hakim CM; Catullo VJ; Chough DM; Ganott MA; Kelly AE; Shinde DD; Sumkin JH; Wallace LP; Bandos AI; Gur D
Radiology; 2015 Jul; 276(1):65-72. PubMed ID: 25768673
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. 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]
53. Dense Breast Ultrasound Screening After Digital Mammography Versus After Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
Dibble EH; Singer TM; Jimoh N; Baird GL; Lourenco AP
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2019 Dec; 213(6):1397-1402. PubMed ID: 31553658
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
54. Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships.
Esserman L; Cowley H; Eberle C; Kirkpatrick A; Chang S; Berbaum K; Gale A
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2002 Mar; 94(5):369-75. PubMed ID: 11880475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates.
Bluekens AM; Karssemeijer N; Beijerinck D; Deurenberg JJ; van Engen RE; Broeders MJ; den Heeten GJ
Eur Radiol; 2010 Sep; 20(9):2067-73. PubMed ID: 20407901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. 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]
57. Mammographic density measured with quantitative computer-aided method: comparison with radiologists' estimates and BI-RADS categories.
Martin KE; Helvie MA; Zhou C; Roubidoux MA; Bailey JE; Paramagul C; Blane CE; Klein KA; Sonnad SS; Chan HP
Radiology; 2006 Sep; 240(3):656-65. PubMed ID: 16857974
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates.
Elmore JG; Miglioretti DL; Reisch LM; Barton MB; Kreuter W; Christiansen CL; Fletcher SW
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2002 Sep; 94(18):1373-80. PubMed ID: 12237283
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. 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]
60. Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomized clinical trial designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography.
Carney PA; Bogart A; Sickles EA; Smith R; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Onega T; Miglioretti DL; Rosenberg R; Yankaskas BC; Geller BM
Acad Radiol; 2013 Nov; 20(11):1389-98. PubMed ID: 24119351
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
