These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
203 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28621548)
1. 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]
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; 2016 Nov; 13(11S):e72-e79. PubMed ID: 27814827 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Improving radiologist's ability in identifying particular abnormal lesions on mammograms through training test set with immediate feedback. Trieu PDY; Lewis SJ; Li T; Ho K; Wong DJ; Tran OTM; Puslednik L; Black D; Brennan PC Sci Rep; 2021 May; 11(1):9899. PubMed ID: 33972611 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection. Birdwell RL; Ikeda DM; O'Shaughnessy KF; Sickles EA Radiology; 2001 Apr; 219(1):192-202. PubMed ID: 11274556 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Clinically missed cancer: how effectively can radiologists use computer-aided detection? Nishikawa RM; Schmidt RA; Linver MN; Edwards AV; Papaioannou J; Stull MA AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Mar; 198(3):708-16. PubMed ID: 22358014 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Breast cancer detected with screening US: reasons for nondetection at mammography. Bae MS; Moon WK; Chang JM; Koo HR; Kim WH; Cho N; Yi A; Yun BL; Lee SH; Kim MY; Ryu EB; Seo M Radiology; 2014 Feb; 270(2):369-77. PubMed ID: 24471386 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Breast screening: What can the interval cancer review teach us? Are we perhaps being a bit too hard on ourselves? Lekanidi K; Dilks P; Suaris T; Kennett S; Purushothaman H Eur J Radiol; 2017 Sep; 94():13-15. PubMed ID: 28941754 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Reader characteristics and mammogram features associated with breast imaging reporting scores. Trieu PDY; Lewis SJ; Li T; Ho K; Tapia KA; Brennan PC Br J Radiol; 2020 Oct; 93(1114):20200363. PubMed ID: 32730088 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [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]
16. Additional Breast Cancer Detection at Digital Screening Mammography through Quality Assurance Sessions between Technologists and Radiologists. Coolen AMP; Korte B; Tjan-Heijnen VCG; Bodewes HW; Voogd AC; Duijm LEM Radiology; 2020 Mar; 294(3):509-517. PubMed ID: 31909697 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Does mammographic density remain a radiological challenge in the digital era? Al-Mousa DS; Rawashdeh M; Alakhras M; Spuur KM; AbuTaimai R; Brennan PC Acta Radiol; 2021 Jun; 62(6):707-714. PubMed ID: 32623914 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]