550 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25435185)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Breast cancer: missed interval and screening-detected cancer at full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography-- results from a retrospective review.
Hoff SR; Abrahamsen AL; Samset JH; Vigeland E; Klepp O; Hofvind S
Radiology; 2012 Aug; 264(2):378-86. PubMed ID: 22700555
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Impact of the transition from screen-film to digital screening mammography on interval cancer characteristics and treatment - a population based study from the Netherlands.
Nederend J; Duijm LE; Louwman MW; Coebergh JW; Roumen RM; Lohle PN; Roukema JA; Rutten MJ; van Steenbergen LN; Ernst MF; Jansen FH; Plaisier ML; Hooijen MJ; Voogd AC
Eur J Cancer; 2014 Jan; 50(1):31-9. PubMed ID: 24275518
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data.
Vinnicombe S; Pinto Pereira SM; McCormack VA; Shiel S; Perry N; Dos Santos Silva IM
Radiology; 2009 May; 251(2):347-58. PubMed ID: 19401569
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Screening outcome in women repeatedly recalled for the same mammographic abnormality before, during and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital screening mammography.
van Bommel R; Voogd AC; Louwman MW; Strobbe LJ; Venderink D; Duijm LE
Eur Radiol; 2017 Feb; 27(2):553-561. PubMed ID: 27180183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography in a population-based screening program: The Sogn and Fjordane study.
Juel IM; Skaane P; Hoff SR; Johannessen G; Hofvind S
Acta Radiol; 2010 Nov; 51(9):962-8. PubMed ID: 20942729
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study.
Skaane P; Hofvind S; Skjennald A
Radiology; 2007 Sep; 244(3):708-17. PubMed ID: 17709826
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Mammographic performance in a population-based screening program: before, during, and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital mammography.
Hofvind S; Skaane P; Elmore JG; Sebuødegård S; Hoff SR; Lee CI
Radiology; 2014 Jul; 272(1):52-62. PubMed ID: 24689858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study.
Skaane P; Skjennald A
Radiology; 2004 Jul; 232(1):197-204. PubMed ID: 15155893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Interval breast cancer characteristics before, during and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital screening mammography.
van Bommel RMG; Weber R; Voogd AC; Nederend J; Louwman MWJ; Venderink D; Strobbe LJA; Rutten MJC; Plaisier ML; Lohle PN; Hooijen MJH; Tjan-Heijnen VCG; Duijm LEM
BMC Cancer; 2017 May; 17(1):315. PubMed ID: 28476109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program.
Karssemeijer N; Bluekens AM; Beijerinck D; Deurenberg JJ; Beekman M; Visser R; van Engen R; Bartels-Kortland A; Broeders MJ
Radiology; 2009 Nov; 253(2):353-8. PubMed ID: 19703851
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program.
Hambly NM; McNicholas MM; Phelan N; Hargaden GC; O'Doherty A; Flanagan FL
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Oct; 193(4):1010-8. PubMed ID: 19770323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations.
Lewin JM; Hendrick RE; D'Orsi CJ; Isaacs PK; Moss LJ; Karellas A; Sisney GA; Kuni CC; Cutter GR
Radiology; 2001 Mar; 218(3):873-80. PubMed ID: 11230669
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Impact of full field digital mammography on the classification and mammographic characteristics of interval breast cancers.
Knox M; O'Brien A; Szabó E; Smith CS; Fenlon HM; McNicholas MM; Flanagan FL
Eur J Radiol; 2015 Jun; 84(6):1056-61. PubMed ID: 25816990
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. The inter-observer variability of breast density scoring between mammography technologists and breast radiologists and its effect on the rate of adjuvant ultrasound.
Mazor RD; Savir A; Gheorghiu D; Weinstein Y; Abadi-Korek I; Shabshin N
Eur J Radiol; 2016 May; 85(5):957-62. PubMed ID: 27130056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
