132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24411004)
1. Changing case Order to Optimise patterns of Performance in mammography Screening (CO-OPS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Taylor-Phillips S; Wallis MG; Parsons H; Dunn J; Stallard N; Campbell H; Sellars S; Szczepura A; Gates S; Clarke A
Trials; 2014 Jan; 15():17. PubMed ID: 24411004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effect of Using the Same vs Different Order for Second Readings of Screening Mammograms on Rates of Breast Cancer Detection: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Taylor-Phillips S; Wallis MG; Jenkinson D; Adekanmbi V; Parsons H; Dunn J; Stallard N; Szczepura A; Gates S; Kearins O; Duncan A; Hudson S; Clarke A
JAMA; 2016 May; 315(18):1956-65. PubMed ID: 27163985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Tailored Breast Screening Trial (TBST)].
Paci E; Mantellini P; Giorgi Rossi P; Falini P; Puliti D;
Epidemiol Prev; 2013; 37(4-5):317-27. PubMed ID: 24293498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Optimum screening mammography reading volumes: evidence from the NHS Breast Screening Programme.
Cornford E; Cheung S; Press M; Kearins O; Taylor-Phillips S
Eur Radiol; 2021 Sep; 31(9):6909-6915. PubMed ID: 33630161
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Optimising breast cancer screening reading: blinding the second reader to the first reader's decisions.
Cooper JA; Jenkinson D; Stinton C; Wallis MG; Hudson S; Taylor-Phillips S
Eur Radiol; 2022 Jan; 32(1):602-612. PubMed ID: 34117912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. One-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST): a prospective, population-based, diagnostic accuracy study.
Zackrisson S; Lång K; Rosso A; Johnson K; Dustler M; Förnvik D; Förnvik H; Sartor H; Timberg P; Tingberg A; Andersson I
Lancet Oncol; 2018 Nov; 19(11):1493-1503. PubMed ID: 30322817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The effect of information about the benefits and harms of mammography on women's decision-making: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Carles M; Martínez-Alonso M; Pons A; Pérez-Lacasta MJ; Perestelo-Pérez L; Sala M; Vidal C; Garcia M; Toledo-Chávarri A; Codern N; Feijoo-Cid M; Romero A; Pla R; Soler-González J; Castells X; Rué M;
Trials; 2017 Sep; 18(1):426. PubMed ID: 28899412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Single reading with computer-aided detection performed by selected radiologists in a breast cancer screening program.
Bargalló X; Santamaría G; Del Amo M; Arguis P; Ríos J; Grau J; Burrel M; Cores E; Velasco M
Eur J Radiol; 2014 Nov; 83(11):2019-23. PubMed ID: 25193778
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms.
Skaane P; Kshirsagar A; Stapleton S; Young K; Castellino RA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Feb; 188(2):377-84. PubMed ID: 17242245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A comparison of cancer detection rates achieved by breast cancer screening programmes by number of readers, for one and two view mammography: results from the UK National Health Service breast screening programme.
Blanks RG; Wallis MG; Moss SM
J Med Screen; 1998; 5(4):195-201. PubMed ID: 9934650
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Supporting breast cancer screening decisions for caregivers of older women with dementia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Fowler NR; Schonberg MA; Sachs GA; Schwartz PH; Gao S; Lane KA; Inger L; Torke AM
Trials; 2018 Dec; 19(1):678. PubMed ID: 30541634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Optimal screening mammography reading volumes; evidence from real life in the East Midlands region of the NHS Breast Screening Programme.
Cornford E; Reed J; Murphy A; Bennett R; Evans A
Clin Radiol; 2011 Feb; 66(2):103-7. PubMed ID: 21216324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Can the NHS Breast Screening Programme afford not to double read screening mammograms?
Liston JC; Dall BJ
Clin Radiol; 2003 Jun; 58(6):474-7. PubMed ID: 12788317
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Screening mammography for women aged 40 to 49 years at average risk for breast cancer: an evidence-based analysis.
Medical Advisory Secretariat
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser; 2007; 7(1):1-32. PubMed ID: 23074501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Performance of first mammography examination in women younger than 40 years.
Yankaskas BC; Haneuse S; Kapp JM; Kerlikowske K; Geller B; Buist DS;
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2010 May; 102(10):692-701. PubMed ID: 20439838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Observer variability in cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening in a study of two versus one view mammography.
Blanks RG; Wallis MG; Given-Wilson RM
J Med Screen; 1999; 6(3):152-8. PubMed ID: 10572847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Mammography screening in the county of Fyn. November 1993-December 1999.
Njor SH; Olsen AH; Bellstrøm T; Dyreborg U; Bak M; Axelsson C; Graversen HP; Schwartz W; Lynge E
APMIS Suppl; 2003; (110):1-33. PubMed ID: 12739252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
