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.
161 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8785616)
1. Radiographers as film readers in screening mammography: an assessment of competence under test and screening conditions. Pauli R; Hammond S; Cooke J; Ansell J Br J Radiol; 1996 Jan; 69(817):10-4. PubMed ID: 8785616 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Can radiographers read screening mammograms? Wivell G; Denton ER; Eve CB; Inglis JC; Harvey I Clin Radiol; 2003 Jan; 58(1):63-7. PubMed ID: 12565207 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Breast screening: PERFORMS identifies key mammographic training needs. Scott HJ; Gale AG Br J Radiol; 2006 Dec; 79 Spec No 2():S127-33. PubMed ID: 17209118 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparison of radiographer/radiologist double film reading with single reading in breast cancer screening. Pauli R; Hammond S; Cooke J; Ansell J J Med Screen; 1996; 3(1):18-22. PubMed ID: 8861046 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Radiographers supporting radiologists in the interpretation of screening mammography: a viable strategy to meet the shortage in the number of radiologists. Torres-Mejía G; Smith RA; Carranza-Flores Mde L; Bogart A; Martínez-Matsushita L; Miglioretti DL; Kerlikowske K; Ortega-Olvera C; Montemayor-Varela E; Angeles-Llerenas A; Bautista-Arredondo S; Sánchez-González G; Martínez-Montañez OG; Uscanga-Sánchez SR; Lazcano-Ponce E; Hernández-Ávila M BMC Cancer; 2015 May; 15():410. PubMed ID: 25975383 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Performance of radiographers in mammogram interpretation: a systematic review. van den Biggelaar FJ; Nelemans PJ; Flobbe K Breast; 2008 Feb; 17(1):85-90. PubMed ID: 17764941 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Introduction of additional double reading of mammograms by radiographers: effects on a biennial screening programme outcome. Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; van Ineveld BM; Roumen RM; de Koning HJ Eur J Cancer; 2008 Jun; 44(9):1223-8. PubMed ID: 18400488 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. An evaluation of the impact of computer-based prompts on screen readers' interpretation of mammograms. Taylor PM; Champness J; Given-Wilson RM; Potts HW; Johnston K Br J Radiol; 2004 Jan; 77(913):21-7. PubMed ID: 14988134 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Impact of computer-aided detection prompts on the sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography. Taylor P; Champness J; Given-Wilson R; Johnston K; Potts H Health Technol Assess; 2005 Feb; 9(6):iii, 1-58. PubMed ID: 15717938 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome. Duijm LE; Louwman MW; Groenewoud JH; van de Poll-Franse LV; Fracheboud J; Coebergh JW Br J Cancer; 2009 Mar; 100(6):901-7. PubMed ID: 19259088 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships. Esserman L; Cowley H; Eberle C; Kirkpatrick A; Chang S; Berbaum K; Gale A J Natl Cancer Inst; 2002 Mar; 94(5):369-75. PubMed ID: 11880475 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Comparing the performance of trained radiographers against experienced radiologists in the UK lung cancer screening (UKLS) trial. Nair A; Gartland N; Barton B; Jones D; Clements L; Screaton NJ; Holemans JA; Duffy SW; Field JK; Baldwin DR; Hansell DM; Devaraj A Br J Radiol; 2016 Oct; 89(1066):20160301. PubMed ID: 27461068 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Analysis of the results of a proficiency test in screening mammography at the CSPO of Florence: review of 705 tests. Ciatto S; Ambrogetti D; Morrone D; Del Turco MR Radiol Med; 2006 Sep; 111(6):797-803. PubMed ID: 16896561 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Reading screening mammograms--attitudes among radiologists and radiographers about skill mix. Johansen LW; Brodersen J Eur J Radiol; 2011 Dec; 80(3):e325-30. PubMed ID: 21227618 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The impact of trained radiographers as concurrent readers on performance and reading time of experienced radiologists in the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial. Nair A; Screaton NJ; Holemans JA; Jones D; Clements L; Barton B; Gartland N; Duffy SW; Baldwin DR; Field JK; Hansell DM; Devaraj A Eur Radiol; 2018 Jan; 28(1):226-234. PubMed ID: 28643093 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]