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)
21. Proficiency test for screening mammography: results for 117 volunteer Italian radiologists. Ciatto S; Ambrogetti D; Catarzi S; Morrone D; Rosselli Del Turco M J Med Screen; 1999; 6(3):149-51. PubMed ID: 10572846 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Mammographic positioning quality of newly trained versus experienced radiographers in the Dutch breast cancer screening programme. van Landsveld-Verhoeven C; den Heeten GJ; Timmers J; Broeders MJ Eur Radiol; 2015 Nov; 25(11):3322-7. PubMed ID: 25987428 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Organized breast screening programs in Canada: effect of radiologist reading volumes on outcomes. Coldman AJ; Major D; Doyle GP; D'yachkova Y; Phillips N; Onysko J; Shumak R; Smith NE; Wadden N Radiology; 2006 Mar; 238(3):809-15. PubMed ID: 16424236 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. [Test for the assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of mammography. Results of 103 tests carried out by Italian radiologists]. Ciatto S; Rosselli Del Turco M; Ambrogetti D; Catarzi S; Morrone D Radiol Med; 1996 Oct; 92(4):367-71. PubMed ID: 9045233 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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]
27. A comparison of interpretation of screening mammograms by a radiographer, a doctor and a radiologist: results and implications. Haiart DC; Henderson J Br J Clin Pract; 1991; 45(1):43-5. PubMed ID: 1931542 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. [Implications and details of the responsibility of radiologists in organized screening activities]. Demuth R; Hazebroucq V; Schwebag MM Bull Soc Sci Med Grand Duche Luxemb; 2006; (1):37-64. PubMed ID: 16869095 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Perceptual and signal detection factors in radiography. Manning DJ; Leach J Ergonomics; 2002 Dec; 45(15):1103-16. PubMed ID: 12569045 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. An observational study to evaluate the performance of units using two radiographers to read screening mammograms. Bennett RL; Sellars SJ; Blanks RG; Moss SM Clin Radiol; 2012 Feb; 67(2):114-21. PubMed ID: 22070944 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Mammography in females with an implanted medical device: impact on image quality, pain and anxiety. Paap E; Witjes M; van Landsveld-Verhoeven C; Pijnappel RM; Maas AH; Broeders MJ Br J Radiol; 2016 Oct; 89(1066):20160142. PubMed ID: 27452263 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. [Quality assurance in organized screening of breast cancer]. De Landtsheer JP; Delaloye JF; Lepori D; De Grandi P; Levi F Rev Med Suisse Romande; 2003 May; 123(5):283-9. PubMed ID: 15095710 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Can radiographers read screening mammograms? Torreggiani WC; Hamilton S Clin Radiol; 2003 Jun; 58(6):497; author reply 497. PubMed ID: 12788328 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Improving the detection of cancer in the screening of mammograms. Laming D; Warren R J Med Screen; 2000; 7(1):24-30. PubMed ID: 10807143 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Use of Full-quality DICOM Images Compared to Minimally Compressed Mammograms in JPEG Format for Radiology Training: A Study From Radiologist and Radiographer Perspectives. Trieu PDY; Barron M; Lewis SJ Acad Radiol; 2023 Aug; 30(8):1748-1755. PubMed ID: 36567143 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Assessment of mammographic film processor performance in a hospital and mobile screening unit. Murray JG; Dowsett DJ; Laird O; Ennis JT Br J Radiol; 1992 Dec; 65(780):1097-101. PubMed ID: 1286417 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Digital mammographic interpretation by UK radiographer mammographers: A JAFROC analysis of observer performance. Williams S; Aksoy U; Reed W; Cielecki L; Woznitza N Radiography (Lond); 2021 Aug; 27(3):915-919. PubMed ID: 33744102 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The influence of breast density and key demographics of radiographers on mammography reporting performance - a pilot study. Alakhras M; Al-Mousa DS; Alqadi AK; Sabaneh HA; Karasneh RM; Spuur KM J Med Radiat Sci; 2022 Mar; 69(1):30-36. PubMed ID: 34028205 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Comparison of reading time between screen-film mammography and soft-copied, full-field digital mammography. Ishiyama M; Tsunoda-Shimizu H; Kikuchi M; Saida Y; Hiramatsu S Breast Cancer; 2009; 16(1):58-61. PubMed ID: 18836795 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Film-reading ability of radiographers in detecting gastric cancer during screening using X-ray examination. Yatake H; Takeda Y; Katsuda T; Gotanda R; Yamazaki H; Kuroda C Jpn J Radiol; 2009 Oct; 27(8):291-6. PubMed ID: 19856223 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]