Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Results: 1 to 20 of 109

Similar articles for PubMed (Select 16990671)

1.

Performance benchmarks for screening mammography.

Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, Sickles EA, Lehman CD, Geller BM, Carney PA, Kerlikowske K, Buist DS, Weaver DL, Barlow WE, Ballard-Barbash R.

Radiology. 2006 Oct;241(1):55-66. Erratum in: Radiology. 2014 May;271(2):620.

PMID:
16990671
2.

Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography.

Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, Geller BM, Leung JW, Rosenberg RD, Smith-Bindman R, Yankaskas BC.

Radiology. 2005 Jun;235(3):775-90.

PMID:
15914475
3.

Identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria for screening mammography.

Carney PA, Sickles EA, Monsees BS, Bassett LW, Brenner RJ, Feig SA, Smith RA, Rosenberg RD, Bogart TA, Browning S, Barry JW, Kelly MM, Tran KA, Miglioretti DL.

Radiology. 2010 May;255(2):354-61. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10091636.

4.

Diagnostic mammography: identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria.

Carney PA, Parikh J, Sickles EA, Feig SA, Monsees B, Bassett LW, Smith RA, Rosenberg R, Ichikawa L, Wallace J, Tran K, Miglioretti DL.

Radiology. 2013 May;267(2):359-67. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12121216. Epub 2013 Jan 7.

5.

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.

6.

Computer-aided detection with screening mammography in a university hospital setting.

Birdwell RL, Bandodkar P, Ikeda DM.

Radiology. 2005 Aug;236(2):451-7.

PMID:
16040901
7.

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
8.

Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists.

Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE.

Radiology. 2002 Sep;224(3):861-9.

PMID:
12202726
9.

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. Epub 2006 Jan 19.

PMID:
16424236
10.

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.

11.

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.

12.

Mammographic interpretation: radiologists' ability to accurately estimate their performance and compare it with that of their peers.

Cook AJ, Elmore JG, Zhu W, Jackson SL, Carney PA, Flowers C, Onega T, Geller B, Rosenberg RD, Miglioretti DL.

AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Sep;199(3):695-702. doi: 10.2214/AJR.11.7402.

13.

Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States.

Yankaskas BC, Taplin SH, Ichikawa L, Geller BM, Rosenberg RD, Carney PA, Kerlikowske K, Ballard-Barbash R, Cutter GR, Barlow WE.

Radiology. 2005 Feb;234(2):363-73.

PMID:
15670994
14.

Clinical outcome assessment in mammography: an audit of 7,506 screening and diagnostic mammography examinations.

Tunçbilek I, Ozdemir A, Gültekin S, Oğur T, Erman R, Yüce C.

Diagn Interv Radiol. 2007 Dec;13(4):183-7.

15.

Bayesian network to predict breast cancer risk of mammographic microcalcifications and reduce number of benign biopsy results: initial experience.

Burnside ES, Rubin DL, Fine JP, Shachter RD, Sisney GA, Leung WK.

Radiology. 2006 Sep;240(3):666-73.

PMID:
16926323
16.

Are radiologists' goals for mammography accuracy consistent with published recommendations?

Jackson SL, Cook AJ, Miglioretti DL, Carney PA, Geller BM, Onega T, Rosenberg RD, Brenner RJ, Elmore JG.

Acad Radiol. 2012 Mar;19(3):289-95. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2011.10.013. Epub 2011 Nov 30.

17.

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
18.

Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41.

Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, Geisel JL, Butler RS, Philpotts LE.

Radiology. 2012 Oct;265(1):59-69. Epub 2012 Jun 21.

PMID:
22723501
19.

Probabilistic computer model developed from clinical data in national mammography database format to classify mammographic findings.

Burnside ES, Davis J, Chhatwal J, Alagoz O, Lindstrom MJ, Geller BM, Littenberg B, Shaffer KA, Kahn CE Jr, Page CD.

Radiology. 2009 Jun;251(3):663-72. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2513081346. Epub 2009 Apr 14.

20.

Do mammographic technologists affect radiologists' diagnostic mammography interpretative performance?

Henderson LM, Benefield T, Bowling JM, Durham DD, Marsh MW, Schroeder BF, Yankaskas BC.

AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Apr;204(4):903-8. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.12903.

PMID:
25794085
Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk