136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28614990)
1. Screening organization and recall rate in a regional breast screening programme.
Beruchashwili T; Gvamichava R; Duffy SW
J Med Screen; 2018 Mar; 25(1):55-56. PubMed ID: 28614990
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Mammography screening in the county of Fyn. November 1993-December 1999.
Njor SH; Olsen AH; Bellstrøm T; Dyreborg U; Bak M; Axelsson C; Graversen HP; Schwartz W; Lynge E
APMIS Suppl; 2003; (110):1-33. PubMed ID: 12739252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. A retrospective audit of the first screening round of the Maltese breast screening programme.
Mizzi D; Zarb F; Dennis A
Radiography (Lond); 2017 Feb; 23(1):60-66. PubMed ID: 28290342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Optimal screening mammography reading volumes; evidence from real life in the East Midlands region of the NHS Breast Screening Programme.
Cornford E; Reed J; Murphy A; Bennett R; Evans A
Clin Radiol; 2011 Feb; 66(2):103-7. PubMed ID: 21216324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. [The effectiveness of population-based breast cancer screening programme].
Szynglarewicz B; Matkowski R; Kasprzak P; Kotowska J; Forgacz J; Pudełko M; Kornafel J
Pol Merkur Lekarski; 2009 Feb; 26(152):117-20. PubMed ID: 19388515
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom.
Smith-Bindman R; Chu PW; Miglioretti DL; Sickles EA; Blanks R; Ballard-Barbash R; Bobo JK; Lee NC; Wallis MG; Patnick J; Kerlikowske K
JAMA; 2003 Oct; 290(16):2129-37. PubMed ID: 14570948
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Nation-wide data on screening performance during the transition to digital mammography: observations in 6 million screens.
van Luijt PA; Fracheboud J; Heijnsdijk EA; den Heeten GJ; de Koning HJ;
Eur J Cancer; 2013 Nov; 49(16):3517-25. PubMed ID: 23871248
[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. National Breast Cancer Screening Programme, Singapore: evaluation of participation and performance indicators.
Loy EY; Molinar D; Chow KY; Fock C
J Med Screen; 2015 Dec; 22(4):194-200. PubMed ID: 26081449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Detection and interval cancer rates during the transition from screen-film to digital mammography in population-based screening.
Sankatsing VDV; Fracheboud J; de Munck L; Broeders MJM; van Ravesteyn NT; Heijnsdijk EAM; Verbeek ALM; Otten JDM; Pijnappel RM; Siesling S; de Koning HJ;
BMC Cancer; 2018 Mar; 18(1):256. PubMed ID: 29506487
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evolution of the National Breast Screening Programme in Ireland: Two-year interval analysis (2004-2013) of BreastCheck.
Fitzpatrick PE; Greehy G; Mooney MT; Flanagan F; Larke A; Connors A; O'Doherty A
J Med Screen; 2018 Dec; 25(4):191-196. PubMed ID: 29153014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study.
Ciatto S; Houssami N; Bernardi D; Caumo F; Pellegrini M; Brunelli S; Tuttobene P; Bricolo P; Fantò C; Valentini M; Montemezzi S; Macaskill P
Lancet Oncol; 2013 Jun; 14(7):583-9. PubMed ID: 23623721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. [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]
18. Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared With Digital Mammography: Outcomes Analysis From 3 Years of Breast Cancer Screening.
McDonald ES; Oustimov A; Weinstein SP; Synnestvedt MB; Schnall M; Conant EF
JAMA Oncol; 2016 Jun; 2(6):737-43. PubMed ID: 26893205
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening.
Haas BM; Kalra V; Geisel J; Raghu M; Durand M; Philpotts LE
Radiology; 2013 Dec; 269(3):694-700. PubMed ID: 23901124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
