216 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30037704)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. The Impact of Mammographic, Radiologist, and Patient Factors on the Likelihood of Probably Benign (BI-RADS 3) Assessment at Diagnostic Mammography.
Chesebro AL; Abbasi N; Lacson R; Chikarmane SA; Licaros ARL; Giess CS
J Breast Imaging; 2024 May; 6(3):246-253. PubMed ID: 38655858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Increased Cancer Detection Rate and Variations in the Recall Rate Resulting from Implementation of 3D Digital Breast Tomosynthesis into a Population-based Screening Program.
Sharpe RE; Venkataraman S; Phillips J; Dialani V; Fein-Zachary VJ; Prakash S; Slanetz PJ; Mehta TS
Radiology; 2016 Mar; 278(3):698-706. PubMed ID: 26458206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Variability in Individual Radiologist BI-RADS 3 Usage at a Large Academic Center: What's the Cause and What Should We Do About It?
Ambinder EB; Mullen LA; Falomo E; Myers K; Hung J; Lee B; Harvey SC
Acad Radiol; 2019 Jul; 26(7):915-922. PubMed ID: 30268720
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Does litigation influence medical practice? The influence of community radiologists' medical malpractice perceptions and experience on screening mammography.
Elmore JG; Taplin SH; Barlow WE; Cutter GR; D'Orsi CJ; Hendrick RE; Abraham LA; Fosse JS; Carney PA
Radiology; 2005 Jul; 236(1):37-46. PubMed ID: 15987961
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy.
Elmore JG; Jackson SL; Abraham L; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Kerlikowske K; Onega T; Rosenberg RD; Sickles EA; Buist DS
Radiology; 2009 Dec; 253(3):641-51. PubMed ID: 19864507
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparing Diagnostic Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Full-Field Digital Mammography in a Hybrid Screening Environment.
Giess CS; Pourjabbar S; Ip IK; Lacson R; Alper E; Khorasani R
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2017 Oct; 209(4):929-934. PubMed ID: 28639832
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. An Artificial Intelligence-based Mammography Screening Protocol for Breast Cancer: Outcome and Radiologist Workload.
Lauritzen AD; Rodríguez-Ruiz A; von Euler-Chelpin MC; Lynge E; Vejborg I; Nielsen M; Karssemeijer N; Lillholm M
Radiology; 2022 Jul; 304(1):41-49. PubMed ID: 35438561
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Recall and detection rates in screening mammography.
Gur D; Sumkin JH; Hardesty LA; Clearfield RJ; Cohen CS; Ganott MA; Hakim CM; Harris KM; Poller WR; Shah R; Wallace LP; Rockette HE
Cancer; 2004 Apr; 100(8):1590-4. PubMed ID: 15073844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Factors associated with breast screening radiologists' annual mammogram reading volume in Italy.
Morrone D; Giordano L; Artuso F; Bernardi D; Fedato C; Frigerio A; Giorgi D; Naldoni C; Saguatti G; Severi D; Taffurelli M; Terribile D; Ventura L; Bucchi L
Radiol Med; 2016 Jul; 121(7):557-63. PubMed ID: 27033475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Do Reader Characteristics Affect Diagnostic Efficacy in Screening Mammography? A Systematic Review.
Wong DJ; Gandomkar Z; Lewis S; Reed W; Suleiman M; Siviengphanom S; Ekpo E
Clin Breast Cancer; 2023 Apr; 23(3):e56-e67. PubMed ID: 36792458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Why Start Now? Retrospective Study Evaluating Baseline Screening Mammography in Patients Age 60 and Older.
Chieh AY; Willis JG; Carroll CM; Mobley AA; Li Y; Li M; Woodard S
Curr Probl Diagn Radiol; 2024; 53(1):62-67. PubMed ID: 37704485
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Effect of integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D-mammography on radiologists' true-positive and false-positive detection in a population screening trial: A descriptive study.
Bernardi D; Li T; Pellegrini M; Macaskill P; Valentini M; Fantò C; Ostillio L; Houssami N
Eur J Radiol; 2018 Sep; 106():26-31. PubMed ID: 30150047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
