Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 138

1.

Effect of Using the Same vs Different Order for Second Readings of Screening Mammograms on Rates of Breast Cancer Detection: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Taylor-Phillips S, Wallis MG, Jenkinson D, Adekanmbi V, Parsons H, Dunn J, Stallard N, Szczepura A, Gates S, Kearins O, Duncan A, Hudson S, Clarke A.

JAMA. 2016 May 10;315(18):1956-65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.5257.

PMID:
27163985
2.

Changing case Order to Optimise patterns of Performance in mammography Screening (CO-OPS): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Taylor-Phillips S, Wallis MG, Parsons H, Dunn J, Stallard N, Campbell H, Sellars S, Szczepura A, Gates S, Clarke A.

Trials. 2014 Jan 10;15:17. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-17.

3.

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.

PMID:
17652282
4.

Can computer-aided detection with double reading of screening mammograms help decrease the false-negative rate? Initial experience.

Destounis SV, DiNitto P, Logan-Young W, Bonaccio E, Zuley ML, Willison KM.

Radiology. 2004 Aug;232(2):578-84. Epub 2004 Jun 30.

PMID:
15229350
5.

Optimal screening mammography reading volumes; evidence from real life in the East Midlands region of the NHS Breast Screening Programme.

Cornford E, Reed J, Murphy A, Bennett R, Evans A.

Clin Radiol. 2011 Feb;66(2):103-7. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2010.09.014. Epub 2010 Dec 3.

PMID:
21216324
6.

Does Reader Performance with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Vary according to Experience with Two-dimensional Mammography?

Tucker L, Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, Dibden A, Seth A, Morel J, Bundred S, Litherland J, Klassen H, Lip G, Purushothaman H, Dobson HM, McClure L, Skippage P, Stoner K, Kissin C, Beetles U, Lim YY, Hurley E, Goligher J, Rahim R, Gagliardi TJ, Suaris T, Duffy SW.

Radiology. 2017 May;283(2):371-380. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017151936. Epub 2017 Mar 13.

PMID:
28287917
7.

Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program.

Kan L, Olivotto IA, Warren Burhenne LJ, Sickles EA, Coldman AJ.

Radiology. 2000 May;215(2):563-7.

PMID:
10796940
9.

[Tailored Breast Screening Trial (TBST)].

Paci E, Mantellini P, Giorgi Rossi P, Falini P, Puliti D; TBST Working Group.

Epidemiol Prev. 2013 Jul-Oct;37(4-5):317-27. Italian.

10.

Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader at screening mammography lowers recall rate but not the cancer detection rate and sensitivity at blinded and non-blinded double reading.

Klompenhouwer EG, Weber RJ, Voogd AC, den Heeten GJ, Strobbe LJ, Broeders MJ, Tjan-Heijnen VC, Duijm LE.

Breast. 2015 Oct;24(5):601-7. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2015.06.004.

PMID:
26117723
11.

Double Reading in Breast Cancer Screening: Cohort Evaluation in the CO-OPS Trial.

Taylor-Phillips S, Jenkinson D, Stinton C, Wallis MG, Dunn J, Clarke A.

Radiology. 2018 Jun;287(3):749-757. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018171010. Epub 2018 Apr 10.

PMID:
29634439
12.

Association between radiologists' experience and accuracy in interpreting screening mammograms.

Molins E, Macià F, Ferrer F, Maristany MT, Castells X.

BMC Health Serv Res. 2008 Apr 25;8:91. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-91.

13.

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
14.
15.

Double versus single reading of mammograms in a breast cancer screening programme: a cost-consequence analysis.

Posso MC, Puig T, Quintana MJ, Solà-Roca J, Bonfill X.

Eur Radiol. 2016 Sep;26(9):3262-71. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-4175-4. Epub 2016 Jan 8.

PMID:
26747264
16.

Mammographic features of breast cancers at single reading with computer-aided detection and at double reading in a large multicenter prospective trial of computer-aided detection: CADET II.

James JJ, Gilbert FJ, Wallis MG, Gillan MG, Astley SM, Boggis CR, Agbaje OF, Brentnall AR, Duffy SW.

Radiology. 2010 Aug;256(2):379-86. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10091899.

PMID:
20656831
17.

Single reading with computer-aided detection for screening mammography.

Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, Gillan MG, Agbaje OF, Wallis MG, James J, Boggis CR, Duffy SW; CADET II Group.

N Engl J Med. 2008 Oct 16;359(16):1675-84. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0803545. Epub 2008 Oct 1.

18.

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
19.
20.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Screening Mammography With and Without Computer-Aided Detection.

Lehman CD, Wellman RD, Buist DS, Kerlikowske K, Tosteson AN, Miglioretti DL; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Nov;175(11):1828-37. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5231.

Supplemental Content

Support Center