Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Results: 1 to 20 of 185

Related Citations for PubMed (Select 21343539)

1.

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.

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.

Mammographic interpretive volume and diagnostic mammogram interpretation performance in community practice.

Haneuse S, Buist DS, Miglioretti DL, Anderson ML, Carney PA, Onega T, Geller BM, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Elmore JG, Taplin SH, Smith RA, Sickles EA.

Radiology. 2012 Jan;262(1):69-79. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11111026. Epub 2011 Nov 21.

4.

Radiologist interpretive volume and breast cancer screening accuracy in a Canadian organized screening program.

Théberge I, Chang SL, Vandal N, Daigle JM, Guertin MH, Pelletier E, Brisson J.

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Mar;106(3):djt461. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djt461. Epub 2014 Mar 5.

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.

Variability of interpretive accuracy among diagnostic mammography facilities.

Jackson SL, Taplin SH, Sickles EA, Abraham L, Barlow WE, Carney PA, Geller B, Berns EA, Cutter GR, Elmore JG.

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Jun 3;101(11):814-27. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp105. Epub 2009 May 26.

7.

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
8.

Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy.

Smith-Bindman R, Chu P, Miglioretti DL, Quale C, Rosenberg RD, Cutter G, Geller B, Bacchetti P, Sickles EA, Kerlikowske K.

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Mar 2;97(5):358-67.

9.

Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography.

Miglioretti DL, Smith-Bindman R, Abraham L, Brenner RJ, Carney PA, Bowles EJ, Buist DS, Elmore JG.

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Dec 19;99(24):1854-63. Epub 2007 Dec 11.

10.

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
11.

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.

12.

When radiologists perform best: the learning curve in screening mammogram interpretation.

Miglioretti DL, Gard CC, Carney PA, Onega TL, Buist DS, Sickles EA, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Geller BM, Elmore JG.

Radiology. 2009 Dec;253(3):632-40. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2533090070. Epub 2009 Sep 29.

13.

Does litigation influence medical practice? The influence of community radiologists' medical malpractice perceptions and experience on screening mammography.

Elmore JG, Taplin SH, Barlow WE, Cutter GR, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, Abraham LA, Fosse JS, Carney PA.

Radiology. 2005 Jul;236(1):37-46.

14.

Additional double reading of screening mammograms by radiologic technologists: impact on screening performance parameters.

Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH, Fracheboud J, de Koning HJ.

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Aug 1;99(15):1162-70. Epub 2007 Jul 24.

15.

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
16.

Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists.

Barlow WE, Chi C, Carney PA, Taplin SH, D'Orsi C, Cutter G, Hendrick RE, Elmore JG.

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004 Dec 15;96(24):1840-50.

17.

Volume of screening mammography and performance in the Quebec population-based Breast Cancer Screening Program.

Théberge I, Hébert-Croteau N, Langlois A, Major D, Brisson J.

CMAJ. 2005 Jan 18;172(2):195-9.

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.

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.

20.

Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation.

Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA.

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 Feb 19;95(4):282-90.

Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk