122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37722468)
1. Rate and Timeliness of Diagnostic Evaluation and Biopsy After Recall From Screening Mammography in the National Mammography Database.
Oluyemi ET; Grimm LJ; Goldman L; Burleson J; Simanowith M; Yao K; Rosenberg RD
J Am Coll Radiol; 2024 Mar; 21(3):427-438. PubMed ID: 37722468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Multilevel Factors Associated With Time to Biopsy After Abnormal Screening Mammography Results by Race and Ethnicity.
Lawson MB; Bissell MCS; Miglioretti DL; Eavey J; Chapman CH; Mandelblatt JS; Onega T; Henderson LM; Rauscher GH; Kerlikowske K; Sprague BL; Bowles EJA; Gard CC; Parsian S; Lee CI
JAMA Oncol; 2022 Aug; 8(8):1115-1126. PubMed ID: 35737381
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Cancer Yield and Patterns of Follow-up for BI-RADS Category 3 after Screening Mammography Recall in the National Mammography Database.
Berg WA; Berg JM; Sickles EA; Burnside ES; Zuley ML; Rosenberg RD; Lee CS
Radiology; 2020 Jul; 296(1):32-41. PubMed ID: 32427557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Diagnostic imaging and biopsy pathways following abnormal screen-film and digital screening mammography.
Hubbard RA; Zhu W; Horblyuk R; Karliner L; Sprague BL; Henderson L; Lee D; Onega T; Buist DS; Sweet A
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2013 Apr; 138(3):879-87. PubMed ID: 23471650
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Time to Diagnostic Evaluation After Mammographic Screening in an Urban Setting.
Oppong BA; Dash C; Coleman T; Torres T; Adams-Campbell LL
J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2016 Dec; 25(12):1225-1230. PubMed ID: 27182625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Screening mammographic performance by race and age in the National Mammography Database: 29,479,665 screening mammograms from 13,181,241 women.
Lee CS; Goldman L; Grimm LJ; Liu IX; Simanowith M; Rosenberg R; Zuley M; Moy L
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2024 Feb; 203(3):599-612. PubMed ID: 37897646
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Prioritizing Screening Mammograms for Immediate Interpretation and Diagnostic Evaluation on the Basis of Risk for Recall.
Ho TH; Bissell MCS; Lee CI; Lee JM; Sprague BL; Tosteson ANA; Wernli KJ; Henderson LM; Kerlikowske K; Miglioretti DL
J Am Coll Radiol; 2023 Mar; 20(3):299-310. PubMed ID: 36273501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Timeliness of abnormal screening and diagnostic mammography follow-up at facilities serving vulnerable women.
Goldman LE; Walker R; Hubbard R; Kerlikowske K;
Med Care; 2013 Apr; 51(4):307-14. PubMed ID: 23358386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Clinical outcomes of mammography in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, 2009-2012.
White A; Miller J; Royalty J; Ryerson AB; Benard V; Helsel W; Kammerer W
Cancer Causes Control; 2015 May; 26(5):723-32. PubMed ID: 25809209
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammogram: variability of facilities.
Rosenberg RD; Haneuse SJ; Geller BM; Buist DS; Miglioretti DL; Brenner RJ; Smith-Bindman R; Taplin SH;
Radiology; 2011 Nov; 261(2):404-13. PubMed ID: 21900620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Impact of Telephone Communication on Patient Adherence With Follow-Up Recommendations After an Abnormal Screening Mammogram.
Nguyen DL; Oluyemi E; Myers KS; Harvey SC; Mullen LA; Ambinder EB
J Am Coll Radiol; 2020 Sep; 17(9):1139-1148. PubMed ID: 32353352
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Mammography facilities serving vulnerable women have longer follow-up times.
Karliner LS; Kaplan C; Livaudais-Toman J; Kerlikowske K
Health Serv Res; 2019 Feb; 54 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):226-233. PubMed ID: 30394526
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comprehensive diagnostic program for medically underserved women with abnormal breast screening evaluations in an urban population.
Palmieri FM; DePeri ER; Mincey BA; Smith JA; Wen LK; Chewar DM; Abaya R; Colon-Otero G; Perez EA
Mayo Clin Proc; 2009 Apr; 84(4):317-22. PubMed ID: 19339648
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluating wait times from screening to breast cancer diagnosis among women undergoing organised assessment vs usual care.
Chiarelli AM; Muradali D; Blackmore KM; Smith CR; Mirea L; Majpruz V; O'Malley FP; Quan ML; Holloway CM
Br J Cancer; 2017 May; 116(10):1254-1263. PubMed ID: 28359079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Factors Impacting False Positive Recall in Screening Mammography.
Honig EL; Mullen LA; Amir T; Alvin MD; Jones MK; Ambinder EB; Falomo ET; Harvey SC
Acad Radiol; 2019 Nov; 26(11):1505-1512. PubMed ID: 30772138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Linked claims and medical records for cancer case management : evaluation of mammography abnormalities.
Eberl MM; Watroba N; Reinhardt M; Pomerantz J; Serghany J; Broffman G; Fox CH; Mahoney MC; Edge SB
Cancer; 2007 Aug; 110(3):518-24. PubMed ID: 17577210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Racial/ethnic disparities in time to follow-up after an abnormal mammogram.
Press R; Carrasquillo O; Sciacca RR; Giardina EG
J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2008; 17(6):923-30. PubMed ID: 18554094
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
