123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27814827)
1. Radiologist Agreement for Mammographic Recall by Case Difficulty and Finding Type.
Onega T; Smith M; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Geller BA; Kerlikowske K; Buist DS; Rosenberg RD; Smith RA; Sickles EA; Haneuse S; Anderson ML; Yankaskas B
J Am Coll Radiol; 2016 Nov; 13(11S):e72-e79. PubMed ID: 27814827
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Radiologist agreement for mammographic recall by case difficulty and finding type.
Onega T; Smith M; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Geller BA; Kerlikowske K; Buist DS; Rosenberg RD; Smith RA; Sickles EA; Haneuse S; Anderson ML; Yankaskas B
J Am Coll Radiol; 2012 Nov; 9(11):788-94. PubMed ID: 23122345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. An investigation into the mammographic appearances of missed breast cancers when recall rates are reduced.
Mohd Norsuddin N; Mello-Thoms C; Reed W; Rickard M; Lewis S
Br J Radiol; 2017 Aug; 90(1076):20170048. PubMed ID: 28621548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Establishing a gold standard for test sets: variation in interpretive agreement of expert mammographers.
Onega T; Anderson ML; Miglioretti DL; Buist DS; Geller B; Bogart A; Smith RA; Sickles EA; Monsees B; Bassett L; Carney PA; Kerlikowske K; Yankaskas BC
Acad Radiol; 2013 Jun; 20(6):731-9. PubMed ID: 23664400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.
Kerlikowske K; Grady D; Barclay J; Frankel SD; Ominsky SH; Sickles EA; Ernster V
J Natl Cancer Inst; 1998 Dec; 90(23):1801-9. PubMed ID: 9839520
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Mammographic features of breast cancers at single reading with computer-aided detection and at double reading in a large multicenter prospective trial of computer-aided detection: CADET II.
James JJ; Gilbert FJ; Wallis MG; Gillan MG; Astley SM; Boggis CR; Agbaje OF; Brentnall AR; Duffy SW
Radiology; 2010 Aug; 256(2):379-86. PubMed ID: 20656831
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Impact of an educational intervention designed to reduce unnecessary recall during screening mammography.
Carney PA; Abraham L; Cook A; Feig SA; Sickles EA; Miglioretti DL; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Elmore JG
Acad Radiol; 2012 Sep; 19(9):1114-20. PubMed ID: 22727623
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Radiologists’ Performance at Reduced Recall Rates in Mammography: A Laboratory Study.
Mohd Norsuddin N; Mello-Thoms C; Reed W; Lewis S
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2019 Feb; 20(2):537-543. PubMed ID: 30803217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Positive predictive value of specific mammographic findings according to reader and patient variables.
Venkatesan A; Chu P; Kerlikowske K; Sickles EA; Smith-Bindman R
Radiology; 2009 Mar; 250(3):648-57. PubMed ID: 19164116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Patterns of Screening Recall Behavior Among Subspecialty Breast Radiologists.
Giess CS; Ip IK; Licaros A; Chikarmane SA; Cochon LR; Lacson R; Khorasani R
Acad Radiol; 2023 May; 30(5):798-806. PubMed ID: 35803888
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Prospective study of breast tomosynthesis as a triage to assessment in screening.
Bernardi D; Ciatto S; Pellegrini M; Tuttobene P; Fanto' C; Valentini M; Michele SD; Peterlongo P; Houssami N
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2012 May; 133(1):267-71. PubMed ID: 22270938
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Analysis of 172 subtle findings on prior normal mammograms in women with breast cancer detected at follow-up screening.
Ikeda DM; Birdwell RL; O'Shaughnessy KF; Brenner RJ; Sickles EA
Radiology; 2003 Feb; 226(2):494-503. PubMed ID: 12563145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Mammographic density and cancer detection: does digital imaging challenge our current understanding?
Al Mousa DS; Mello-Thoms C; Ryan EA; Lee WB; Pietrzyk MW; Reed WM; Heard R; Poulos A; Tan J; Li Y; Brennan PC
Acad Radiol; 2014 Nov; 21(11):1377-85. PubMed ID: 25097013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Validity and reliability of mammographic interpretation by Mexican radiologists, using the BI-RADS system].
Torres-Mejía G; Villaseñor-Navarro Y; Yunes-Díaz E; Angeles-Llerenas A; Martínez-Montañez OG; Lazcano-Ponce E
Rev Invest Clin; 2011; 63(2):124-34. PubMed ID: 21717719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Prospective assessment of computer-aided detection in interpretation of screening mammography.
Ko JM; Nicholas MJ; Mendel JB; Slanetz PJ
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Dec; 187(6):1483-91. PubMed ID: 17114541
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Breast carcinoma diagnosed in mammographic screening incidentally. Research on the radiologic signs in prior mammograms].
Marra V; Frigerio A; Di Virgilio MR; Menna S; Burke P
Radiol Med; 1999 Nov; 98(5):342-6. PubMed ID: 10780212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Radiology resident mammography training: interpretation difficulty and error-making patterns.
Grimm LJ; Kuzmiak CM; Ghate SV; Yoon SC; Mazurowski MA
Acad Radiol; 2014 Jul; 21(7):888-92. PubMed ID: 24928157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
