511 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28244803)
1. National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Diagnostic Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
Sprague BL; Arao RF; Miglioretti DL; Henderson LM; Buist DS; Onega T; Rauscher GH; Lee JM; Tosteson AN; Kerlikowske K; Lehman CD;
Radiology; 2017 Apr; 283(1):59-69. PubMed ID: 28244803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
Lehman CD; Arao RF; Sprague BL; Lee JM; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Henderson LM; Onega T; Tosteson AN; Rauscher GH; Miglioretti DL
Radiology; 2017 Apr; 283(1):49-58. PubMed ID: 27918707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography.
Sickles EA; Miglioretti DL; Ballard-Barbash R; Geller BM; Leung JW; Rosenberg RD; Smith-Bindman R; Yankaskas BC
Radiology; 2005 Jun; 235(3):775-90. PubMed ID: 15914475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. National Performance Benchmarks for Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
Lee CI; Abraham L; Miglioretti DL; Onega T; Kerlikowske K; Lee JM; Sprague BL; Tosteson ANA; Rauscher GH; Bowles EJA; diFlorio-Alexander RM; Henderson LM;
Radiology; 2023 May; 307(4):e222499. PubMed ID: 37039687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography.
Rosenberg RD; Yankaskas BC; Abraham LA; Sickles EA; Lehman CD; Geller BM; Carney PA; Kerlikowske K; Buist DS; Weaver DL; Barlow WE; Ballard-Barbash R
Radiology; 2006 Oct; 241(1):55-66. PubMed ID: 16990671
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Screening Digital Mammography Recall Rate: Does It Change with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Experience?
DiPrete O; Lourenco AP; Baird GL; Mainiero MB
Radiology; 2018 Mar; 286(3):838-844. PubMed ID: 29173123
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Diagnostic mammography: identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria.
Carney PA; Parikh J; Sickles EA; Feig SA; Monsees B; Bassett LW; Smith RA; Rosenberg R; Ichikawa L; Wallace J; Tran K; Miglioretti DL
Radiology; 2013 May; 267(2):359-67. PubMed ID: 23297329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Digital Mammography and Breast Tomosynthesis Performance in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer, 2007-2016.
Lee JM; Ichikawa LE; Wernli KJ; Bowles E; Specht JM; Kerlikowske K; Miglioretti DL; Lowry KP; Tosteson ANA; Stout NK; Houssami N; Onega T; Buist DSM
Radiology; 2021 Aug; 300(2):290-300. PubMed ID: 34003059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Variability of interpretive accuracy among diagnostic mammography facilities.
Jackson SL; Taplin SH; Sickles EA; Abraham L; Barlow WE; Carney PA; Geller B; Berns EA; Cutter GR; Elmore JG
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2009 Jun; 101(11):814-27. PubMed ID: 19470953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States.
Buist DS; Anderson ML; Haneuse SJ; Sickles EA; Smith RA; Carney PA; Taplin SH; Rosenberg RD; Geller BM; Onega TL; Monsees BS; Bassett LW; Yankaskas BC; Elmore JG; Kerlikowske K; Miglioretti DL
Radiology; 2011 Apr; 259(1):72-84. PubMed ID: 21343539
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Radiologist Characteristics Associated with Interpretive Performance of Screening Mammography: A National Mammography Database (NMD) Study.
Lee CS; Moy L; Hughes D; Golden D; Bhargavan-Chatfield M; Hemingway J; Geras A; Duszak R; Rosenkrantz AB
Radiology; 2021 Sep; 300(3):518-528. PubMed ID: 34156300
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Breast cancer detection rate: designing imaging trials to demonstrate improvements.
Jiang Y; Miglioretti DL; Metz CE; Schmidt RA
Radiology; 2007 May; 243(2):360-7. PubMed ID: 17456866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of performance metrics with digital 2D versus tomosynthesis mammography in the diagnostic setting.
Bahl M; Mercaldo S; Vijapura CA; McCarthy AM; Lehman CD
Eur Radiol; 2019 Feb; 29(2):477-484. PubMed ID: 29967957
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Screening Mammography With and Without Computer-Aided Detection.
Lehman CD; Wellman RD; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Tosteson AN; Miglioretti DL;
JAMA Intern Med; 2015 Nov; 175(11):1828-37. PubMed ID: 26414882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The National Mammography Database: Preliminary Data.
Lee CS; Bhargavan-Chatfield M; Burnside ES; Nagy P; Sickles EA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Apr; 206(4):883-90. PubMed ID: 26866649
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Supplemental Breast MR Imaging Screening of Women with Average Risk of Breast Cancer.
Kuhl CK; Strobel K; Bieling H; Leutner C; Schild HH; Schrading S
Radiology; 2017 May; 283(2):361-370. PubMed ID: 28221097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
