Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 110

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.

National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Lehman CD, Arao RF, Sprague BL, Lee JM, Buist DS, Kerlikowske K, Henderson LM, Onega T, Tosteson AN, Rauscher GH, Miglioretti DL.

Radiology. 2017 Apr;283(1):49-58. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016161174. Epub 2016 Dec 5.

PMID:
27918707
3.

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
4.

National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Diagnostic Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Sprague BL, Arao RF, Miglioretti DL, Henderson LM, Buist DS, Onega T, Rauscher GH, Lee JM, Tosteson AN, Kerlikowske K, Lehman CD; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Radiology. 2017 Apr;283(1):59-69. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017161519. Epub 2017 Feb 28.

PMID:
28244803
5.

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.

6.

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.

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.

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
9.

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.

10.

The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practice.

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

Acad Radiol. 2015 Mar;22(3):278-89. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.09.013. Epub 2014 Nov 27.

11.

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
12.

Supplemental Screening for Breast Cancer in Women With Dense Breasts: A Systematic Review for the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force [Internet].

Melnikow J, Fenton JJ, Whitlock EP, Miglioretti DL, Weyrich MS, Thompson JH, Shah K.

Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2016 Jan.

13.

The National Mammography Database: Preliminary Data.

Lee CS, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Burnside ES, Nagy P, Sickles EA.

AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Apr;206(4):883-90. doi: 10.2214/AJR.15.14312. Epub 2016 Feb 11.

PMID:
26866649
14.

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
15.

Breast cancer detection with short-interval follow-up compared with return to annual screening in patients with benign stereotactic or US-guided breast biopsy results.

Johnson JM, Johnson AK, O'Meara ES, Miglioretti DL, Geller BM, Hotaling EN, Herschorn SD.

Radiology. 2015 Apr;275(1):54-60. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14140036. Epub 2014 Nov 25.

16.

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.

17.

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.

18.

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.

19.

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
20.

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.

Supplemental Content

Support Center