Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 87

1.

Screening mammography: test set data can reasonably describe actual clinical reporting.

Soh BP, Lee W, McEntee MF, Kench PL, Reed WM, Heard R, Chakraborty DP, Brennan PC.

Radiology. 2013 Jul;268(1):46-53. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13122399. Epub 2013 Mar 12.

2.

Mammography test sets: reading location and prior images do not affect group performance.

Soh BP, Lee WB, McEntee MF, Kench PL, Reed WM, Heard R, Chakraborty DP, Brennan PC.

Clin Radiol. 2014 Apr;69(4):397-402. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2013.11.010. Epub 2014 Jan 10.

PMID:
24418670
3.

Markers of good performance in mammography depend on number of annual readings.

Rawashdeh MA, Lee WB, Bourne RM, Ryan EA, Pietrzyk MW, Reed WM, Heard RC, Black DA, Brennan PC.

Radiology. 2013 Oct;269(1):61-7. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13122581. Epub 2013 Jun 4.

PMID:
23737538
4.

Interpretation of automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) with and without knowledge of mammography: a reader performance study.

Skaane P, Gullien R, Eben EB, Sandhaug M, Schulz-Wendtland R, Stoeblen F.

Acta Radiol. 2015 Apr;56(4):404-12. doi: 10.1177/0284185114528835. Epub 2014 Mar 28.

PMID:
24682405
5.

Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study.

Skaane P, Balleyguier C, Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Piguet JC, Young K, Niklason LT.

Radiology. 2005 Oct;237(1):37-44. Epub 2005 Aug 11.

PMID:
16100086
6.

Certain performance values arising from mammographic test set readings correlate well with clinical audit.

Soh BP, Lee WB, Mello-Thoms C, Tapia K, Ryan J, Hung WT, Thompson G, Heard R, Brennan P.

J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2015 Aug;59(4):403-10. doi: 10.1111/1754-9485.12301. Epub 2015 Apr 1.

PMID:
25828554
7.

Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.

Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Frankel SD, Ominsky SH, Sickles EA, Ernster V.

J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998 Dec 2;90(23):1801-9.

PMID:
9839520
8.

Reported mammographic density: film-screen versus digital acquisition.

Harvey JA, Gard CC, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Buist DS, Geller BA, Onega TL; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Radiology. 2013 Mar;266(3):752-8. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12120221. Epub 2012 Dec 18.

9.

Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography.

Nishikawa RM, Acharyya S, Gatsonis C, Pisano ED, Cole EB, Marques HS, D'Orsi CJ, Farria DM, Kanal KM, Mahoney MC, Rebner M, Staiger MJ; Digital Mammography Image Screening Trial investigator group.

Radiology. 2009 Apr;251(1):41-9. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2511071462.

10.

Investigation of optimal use of computer-aided detection systems: the role of the "machine" in decision making process.

Paquerault S, Hardy PT, Wersto N, Chen J, Smith RC.

Acad Radiol. 2010 Sep;17(9):1112-21. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2010.04.010. Epub 2010 Jun 3.

PMID:
20605489
11.

Agreement of the order of overall performance levels under different reading paradigms.

Gur D, Bandos AI, Klym AH, Cohen CS, Hakim CM, Hardesty LA, Ganott MA, Perrin RL, Poller WR, Shah R, Sumkin JH, Wallace LP, Rockette HE.

Acad Radiol. 2008 Dec;15(12):1567-73. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2008.07.011.

12.

Accuracy of soft-copy digital mammography versus that of screen-film mammography according to digital manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST retrospective multireader study.

Hendrick RE, Cole EB, Pisano ED, Acharyya S, Marques H, Cohen MA, Jong RA, Mawdsley GE, Kanal KM, D'Orsi CJ, Rebner M, Gatsonis C.

Radiology. 2008 Apr;247(1):38-48. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2471070418.

13.

Impact of the number of readers on mammography interpretation.

Hukkinen K, Kivisaari L, Vehmas T.

Acta Radiol. 2006 Sep;47(7):655-9.

PMID:
16950700
14.

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.

15.

Cancer cases from ACRIN digital mammographic imaging screening trial: radiologist analysis with use of a logistic regression model.

Pisano ED, Acharyya S, Cole EB, Marques HS, Yaffe MJ, Blevins M, Conant EF, Hendrick RE, Baum JK, Fajardo LL, Jong RA, Koomen MA, Kuzmiak CM, Lee Y, Pavic D, Yoon SC, Padungchaichote W, Gatsonis C.

Radiology. 2009 Aug;252(2):348-57. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2522081457.

16.

Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms.

Skaane P, Kshirsagar A, Stapleton S, Young K, Castellino RA.

AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Feb;188(2):377-84.

PMID:
17242245
17.

The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations.

Gur D, Bandos AI, Cohen CS, Hakim CM, Hardesty LA, Ganott MA, Perrin RL, Poller WR, Shah R, Sumkin JH, Wallace LP, Rockette HE.

Radiology. 2008 Oct;249(1):47-53. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2491072025. Epub 2008 Aug 5.

18.

A dedicated BI-RADS training programme: effect on the inter-observer variation among screening radiologists.

Timmers JM, van Doorne-Nagtegaal HJ, Verbeek AL, den Heeten GJ, Broeders MJ.

Eur J Radiol. 2012 Sep;81(9):2184-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.07.011. Epub 2011 Sep 6.

PMID:
21899969
19.

Importance of comparison of current and prior mammograms in breast cancer screening.

Roelofs AA, Karssemeijer N, Wedekind N, Beck C, van Woudenberg S, Snoeren PR, Hendriks JH, Rosselli del Turco M, Bjurstam N, Junkermann H, Beijerinck D, Séradour B, Evertsz CJ.

Radiology. 2007 Jan;242(1):70-7.

PMID:
17185661
20.

Reader variability in reporting breast imaging according to BI-RADS assessment categories (the Florence experience).

Ciatto S, Houssami N, Apruzzese A, Bassetti E, Brancato B, Carozzi F, Catarzi S, Lamberini MP, Marcelli G, Pellizzoni R, Pesce B, Risso G, Russo F, Scorsolini A.

Breast. 2006 Feb;15(1):44-51. Epub 2005 Aug 1.

PMID:
16076556

Supplemental Content

Support Center