161 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36792458)
1. 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]
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. 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]
4. 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]
5. Additional double reading of screening mammograms by radiologic technologists: impact on screening performance parameters.
Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; de Koning HJ
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Aug; 99(15):1162-70. PubMed ID: 17652282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Interpretive Performance and Inter-Observer Agreement on Digital Mammography Test Sets.
Kim SH; Lee EH; Jun JK; Kim YM; Chang YW; Lee JH; Kim HW; Choi EJ;
Korean J Radiol; 2019 Feb; 20(2):218-224. PubMed ID: 30672161
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Range of Radiologist Performance in a Population-based Screening Cohort of 1 Million Digital Mammography Examinations.
Salim M; Dembrower K; Eklund M; Lindholm P; Strand F
Radiology; 2020 Oct; 297(1):33-39. PubMed ID: 32720866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. Volume of screening mammography and performance in the Quebec population-based Breast Cancer Screening Program.
Théberge I; Hébert-Croteau N; Langlois A; Major D; Brisson J
CMAJ; 2005 Jan; 172(2):195-9. PubMed ID: 15655240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Optimum screening mammography reading volumes: evidence from the NHS Breast Screening Programme.
Cornford E; Cheung S; Press M; Kearins O; Taylor-Phillips S
Eur Radiol; 2021 Sep; 31(9):6909-6915. PubMed ID: 33630161
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The Impact of Radiologist Screening Mammogram Reading Volume on Performance in the Ontario Breast Screening Program.
Walker MJ; Hartman K; Majpruz V; Leung YW; Fienberg S; Rabeneck L; Chiarelli AM
Can Assoc Radiol J; 2022 May; 73(2):362-370. PubMed ID: 34423685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program.
Kan L; Olivotto IA; Warren Burhenne LJ; Sickles EA; Coldman AJ
Radiology; 2000 May; 215(2):563-7. PubMed ID: 10796940
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Performance of Radiologists and Radiographers in Double Reading Mammograms: The UK National Health Service Breast Screening Program.
Chen Y; James JJ; Michalopoulou E; Darker IT; Jenkins J
Radiology; 2023 Jan; 306(1):102-109. PubMed ID: 36098643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Radiologists' interpretive efficiency and variability in true- and false-positive detection when screen-reading with tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) relative to standard mammography in population screening.
Svahn TM; Macaskill P; Houssami N
Breast; 2015 Dec; 24(6):687-93. PubMed ID: 26433751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Does Reader Performance with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Vary according to Experience with Two-dimensional Mammography?
Tucker L; Gilbert FJ; Astley SM; Dibden A; Seth A; Morel J; Bundred S; Litherland J; Klassen H; Lip G; Purushothaman H; Dobson HM; McClure L; Skippage P; Stoner K; Kissin C; Beetles U; Lim YY; Hurley E; Goligher J; Rahim R; Gagliardi TJ; Suaris T; Duffy SW
Radiology; 2017 May; 283(2):371-380. PubMed ID: 28287917
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
