189 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25103986)
21. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy.
Smith-Bindman R; Chu P; Miglioretti DL; Quale C; Rosenberg RD; Cutter G; Geller B; Bacchetti P; Sickles EA; Kerlikowske K
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2005 Mar; 97(5):358-67. PubMed ID: 15741572
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Performance of a subsidised mammographic screening programme in Malaysia, a middle-income Asian country.
Lee M; Mariapun S; Rajaram N; Teo SH; Yip CH
BMC Public Health; 2017 Jan; 17(1):127. PubMed ID: 28129762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Strategies for Decreasing Screening Mammography Recall Rates While Maintaining Performance Metrics.
Mullen LA; Panigrahi B; Hollada J; Panigrahi B; Falomo ET; Harvey SC
Acad Radiol; 2017 Dec; 24(12):1556-1560. PubMed ID: 28760363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice.
Greenberg JS; Javitt MC; Katzen J; Michael S; Holland AE
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Sep; 203(3):687-93. PubMed ID: 24918774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Performance measures of 8,169,869 examinations in the National Breast Cancer Screening Program in Taiwan, 2004-2020.
Yao MM; Vy VPT; Chen TH; Hsu HH; Hsu GC; Lee CS; Lin LJ; Chia SL; Wu CC; Chan WP; Yen AM
BMC Med; 2023 Dec; 21(1):497. PubMed ID: 38102671
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Analysis of Participant Factors That Affect the Diagnostic Performance of Screening Mammography: A Report of the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea.
Kim YJ; Lee EH; Jun JK; Shin DR; Park YM; Kim HW; Kim Y; Kim KW; Lim HS; Park JS; Kim HJ; Jo HM;
Korean J Radiol; 2017; 18(4):624-631. PubMed ID: 28670157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Baseline Screening Mammography: Performance of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
McDonald ES; McCarthy AM; Akhtar AL; Synnestvedt MB; Schnall M; Conant EF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Nov; 205(5):1143-8. PubMed ID: 26496565
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Improving Performance of Mammographic Breast Positioning in an Academic Radiology Practice.
Pal S; Ikeda DM; Jesinger RA; Mickelsen LJ; Chen CA; Larson DB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Apr; 210(4):807-815. PubMed ID: 29412019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Performance of Screening Mammography: A Report of the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea.
Lee EH; Kim KW; Kim YJ; Shin DR; Park YM; Lim HS; Park JS; Kim HW; Kim YM; Kim HJ; Jun JK
Korean J Radiol; 2016; 17(4):489-96. PubMed ID: 27390540
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Ultrasound as the Primary Screening Test for Breast Cancer: Analysis From ACRIN 6666.
Berg WA; Bandos AI; Mendelson EB; Lehrer D; Jong RA; Pisano ED
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2016 Apr; 108(4):. PubMed ID: 26712110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. Volumetric breast density affects performance of digital screening mammography.
Wanders JO; Holland K; Veldhuis WB; Mann RM; Pijnappel RM; Peeters PH; van Gils CH; Karssemeijer N
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Feb; 162(1):95-103. PubMed ID: 28012087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Nationwide cross-sectional adherence to mammography screening guidelines: national behavioral risk factor surveillance system survey results.
Narayan A; Fischer A; Zhang Z; Woods R; Morris E; Harvey S
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Aug; 164(3):719-725. PubMed ID: 28508184
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. Screening mammography: value in women 35-39 years old.
Liberman L; Dershaw DD; Deutch BM; Thaler HT; Lippin BS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1993 Jul; 161(1):53-6. PubMed ID: 8517320
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States.
Yankaskas BC; Taplin SH; Ichikawa L; Geller BM; Rosenberg RD; Carney PA; Kerlikowske K; Ballard-Barbash R; Cutter GR; Barlow WE
Radiology; 2005 Feb; 234(2):363-73. PubMed ID: 15670994
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study.
Bernardi D; Macaskill P; Pellegrini M; Valentini M; Fantò C; Ostillio L; Tuttobene P; Luparia A; Houssami N
Lancet Oncol; 2016 Aug; 17(8):1105-1113. PubMed ID: 27345635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Supplemental Screening Breast US in Women with Negative Mammographic Findings: Effect of Routine Axillary Scanning.
Lee SH; Yi A; Jang MJ; Chang JM; Cho N; Moon WK
Radiology; 2018 Mar; 286(3):830-837. PubMed ID: 29083988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
