Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Results: 1 to 20 of 129

Similar articles for PubMed (Select 17517927)

1.

Evidence-based target recall rates for screening mammography.

Schell MJ, Yankaskas BC, Ballard-Barbash R, Qaqish BF, Barlow WE, Rosenberg RD, Smith-Bindman R.

Radiology. 2007 Jun;243(3):681-9.

PMID:
17517927
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. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14132806. Epub 2014 Jun 24.

PMID:
24960110
3.

Effect of recall rate on earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch performance indicators.

Otten JD, Karssemeijer N, Hendriks JH, Groenewoud JH, Fracheboud J, Verbeek AL, de Koning HJ, Holland R.

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 May 18;97(10):748-54.

4.

Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States.

Buist DS, Anderson ML, Haneuse SJ, Sickles EA, Smith RA, Carney PA, Taplin SH, Rosenberg RD, Geller BM, Onega TL, Monsees BS, Bassett LW, Yankaskas BC, Elmore JG, Kerlikowske K, Miglioretti DL.

Radiology. 2011 Apr;259(1):72-84. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10101698. Epub 2011 Feb 22.

5.

Effect of transition to digital mammography on clinical outcomes.

Glynn CG, Farria DM, Monsees BS, Salcman JT, Wiele KN, Hildebolt CF.

Radiology. 2011 Sep;260(3):664-70. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11110159. Epub 2011 Jul 25.

PMID:
21788529
6.

Breast cancer detection rate: designing imaging trials to demonstrate improvements.

Jiang Y, Miglioretti DL, Metz CE, Schmidt RA.

Radiology. 2007 May;243(2):360-7.

PMID:
17456866
7.

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. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2533082308. Epub 2009 Oct 28.

8.

Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography.

Yankaskas BC, Cleveland RJ, Schell MJ, Kozar R.

AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Sep;177(3):543-9.

PMID:
11517044
9.

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 22;290(16):2129-37. Erratum in: JAMA. 2004 Feb 18;291(7):824.

PMID:
14570948
10.

Comparing the performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK.

Smith-Bindman R, Ballard-Barbash R, Miglioretti DL, Patnick J, Kerlikowske K.

J Med Screen. 2005;12(1):50-4.

PMID:
15814020
11.
12.

Comparison of recall and cancer detection rates for immediate versus batch interpretation of screening mammograms.

Ghate SV, Soo MS, Baker JA, Walsh R, Gimenez EI, Rosen EL.

Radiology. 2005 Apr;235(1):31-5.

PMID:
15798165
13.

Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography.

Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D'Orsi CJ, Feig SA, Kopans DB, O'Shaughnessy KF, Sickles EA, Tabar L, Vyborny CJ, Castellino RA.

Radiology. 2000 May;215(2):554-62. Erratum in: Radiology 2000 Jul;216(1):306.

PMID:
10796939
14.

Effect of observing change from comparison mammograms on performance of screening mammography in a large community-based population.

Yankaskas BC, May RC, Matuszewski J, Bowling JM, Jarman MP, Schroeder BF.

Radiology. 2011 Dec;261(3):762-70. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11110653. Epub 2011 Oct 26.

15.

Consensus review of discordant findings maximizes cancer detection rate in double-reader screening mammography: Irish National Breast Screening Program experience.

Shaw CM, Flanagan FL, Fenlon HM, McNicholas MM.

Radiology. 2009 Feb;250(2):354-62. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2502080224.

PMID:
19188311
16.

Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection.

Sala M, Comas M, MaciĆ  F, Martinez J, Casamitjana M, Castells X.

Radiology. 2009 Jul;252(1):31-9. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2521080696. Epub 2009 May 6.

PMID:
19420316
17.

Time trends in radiologists' interpretive performance at screening mammography from the community-based Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, 1996-2004.

Ichikawa LE, Barlow WE, Anderson ML, Taplin SH, Geller BM, Brenner RJ; National Cancer Institute-sponsored Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Radiology. 2010 Jul;256(1):74-82. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10091881. Epub 2010 May 26.

18.

Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography in a community practice: are there differences between specialists and general radiologists?

Leung JW, Margolin FR, Dee KE, Jacobs RP, Denny SR, Schrumpf JD.

AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Jan;188(1):236-41.

PMID:
17179372
19.

A true screening environment for review of interval breast cancers: pilot study to reduce bias.

Gordon PB, Borugian MJ, Warren Burhenne LJ.

Radiology. 2007 Nov;245(2):411-5. Epub 2007 Sep 11.

PMID:
17848684
20.

Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data.

Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, Shiel S, Perry N, Dos Santos Silva IM.

Radiology. 2009 May;251(2):347-58. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2512081235. Review.

PMID:
19401569
Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk