403 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26117723)
1. Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader at screening mammography lowers recall rate but not the cancer detection rate and sensitivity at blinded and non-blinded double reading.
Klompenhouwer EG; Weber RJ; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Strobbe LJ; Broeders MJ; Tjan-Heijnen VC; Duijm LE
Breast; 2015 Oct; 24(5):601-7. PubMed ID: 26117723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Discrepant screening mammography assessments at blinded and non-blinded double reading: impact of arbitration by a third reader on screening outcome.
Klompenhouwer EG; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Strobbe LJ; Tjan-Heijnen VC; Broeders MJ; Duijm LE
Eur Radiol; 2015 Oct; 25(10):2821-9. PubMed ID: 25894007
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: a prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands.
Klompenhouwer EG; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Strobbe LJ; de Haan AF; Wauters CA; Broeders MJ; Duijm LE
Eur J Cancer; 2015 Feb; 51(3):391-9. PubMed ID: 25573788
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Characteristics of screen-detected cancers following concordant or discordant recalls at blinded double reading in biennial digital screening mammography.
Coolen AMP; Lameijer JRC; Voogd AC; Louwman MWJ; Strobbe LJ; Tjan-Heijnen VCG; Duijm LEM
Eur Radiol; 2019 Jan; 29(1):337-344. PubMed ID: 29943181
[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. Impact of the second reader on screening outcome at blinded double reading of digital screening mammograms.
Coolen AMP; Voogd AC; Strobbe LJ; Louwman MWJ; Tjan-Heijnen VCG; Duijm LEM
Br J Cancer; 2018 Aug; 119(4):503-507. PubMed ID: 30038325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Incorporation of the technologist's opinion for arbitration of discrepant assessments among radiologists at screening mammography.
Coolen AMP; Lameijer JRC; Voogd AC; Strobbe LJ; Louwman MWJ; Tjan-Heijnen VCG; Duijm LEM
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2018 Aug; 171(1):143-149. PubMed ID: 29730729
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Using the BI-RADS lexicon in a restrictive form of double reading as a strategy for minimizing screening mammography recall rates.
Ghate SV; Baker JA; Kim CE; Johnson KS; Walsh R; Soo MS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Apr; 198(4):962-70. PubMed ID: 22451567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Does computer-aided detection have a role in the arbitration of discordant double-reading opinions in a breast-screening programme?
James JJ; Cornford EJ
Clin Radiol; 2009 Jan; 64(1):46-51. PubMed ID: 19070697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. On the role of arbitration of discordant double readings of screening mammography: experience from two Italian programmes.
Caumo F; Brunelli S; Tosi E; Teggi S; Bovo C; Bonavina G; Ciatto S
Radiol Med; 2011 Feb; 116(1):84-91. PubMed ID: 20981500
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The role of arbitration of discordant reports at double reading of screening mammograms.
Ciatto S; Ambrogetti D; Risso G; Catarzi S; Morrone D; Mantellini P; Rosselli Del Turco M
J Med Screen; 2005; 12(3):125-7. PubMed ID: 16156942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Independent double reading of screening mammograms in The Netherlands: effect of arbitration following reader disagreements.
Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; Hendriks JH; de Koning HJ
Radiology; 2004 May; 231(2):564-70. PubMed ID: 15044742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Effect of recall rate on earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch performance indicators.
Otten JD; Karssemeijer N; Hendriks JH; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; Verbeek AL; de Koning HJ; Holland R
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2005 May; 97(10):748-54. PubMed ID: 15900044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of computer-aided detection to double reading of screening mammograms: review of 231,221 mammograms.
Gromet M
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Apr; 190(4):854-9. PubMed ID: 18356428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Using deep learning to assist readers during the arbitration process: a lesion-based retrospective evaluation of breast cancer screening performance.
Kerschke L; Weigel S; Rodriguez-Ruiz A; Karssemeijer N; Heindel W
Eur Radiol; 2022 Feb; 32(2):842-852. PubMed ID: 34383147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Double versus single reading of mammograms in a breast cancer screening programme: a cost-consequence analysis.
Posso MC; Puig T; Quintana MJ; Solà-Roca J; Bonfill X
Eur Radiol; 2016 Sep; 26(9):3262-71. PubMed ID: 26747264
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [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]
19. Mammographic breast density: How it affects performance indicators in screening programmes?
Posso M; Louro J; Sánchez M; Román M; Vidal C; Sala M; Baré M; Castells X;
Eur J Radiol; 2019 Jan; 110():81-87. PubMed ID: 30599878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
