Format
Sort by

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 143

1.

Double reading of mammography screening films--one radiologist or two?

Anttinen I, Pamilo M, Soiva M, Roiha M.

Clin Radiol. 1993 Dec;48(6):414-21.

PMID:
8293648
2.

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.

3.

Introduction of additional double reading of mammograms by radiographers: effects on a biennial screening programme outcome.

Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH, Fracheboud J, van Ineveld BM, Roumen RM, de Koning HJ.

Eur J Cancer. 2008 Jun;44(9):1223-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.03.003. Epub 2008 Apr 8.

PMID:
18400488
4.
5.
6.

Mammography screening. One versus two views and independent double reading.

Thurfjell E.

Acta Radiol. 1994 Jul;35(4):345-50.

PMID:
8011383
7.

Independent double reading of screening mammograms.

Ciatto S, Del Turco MR, Morrone D, Catarzi S, Ambrogetti D, Cariddi A, Zappa M.

J Med Screen. 1995;2(2):99-101.

PMID:
7497164
8.

Comparison of radiographer/radiologist double film reading with single reading in breast cancer screening.

Pauli R, Hammond S, Cooke J, Ansell J.

J Med Screen. 1996;3(1):18-22.

PMID:
8861046
9.

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.

10.

[Breast carcinoma diagnosed in mammographic screening incidentally. Research on the radiologic signs in prior mammograms].

Marra V, Frigerio A, Di Virgilio MR, Menna S, Burke P.

Radiol Med. 1999 Nov;98(5):342-6. Italian.

PMID:
10780212
11.

Follow-up and final results of the Oslo I Study comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading.

Skaane P, Skjennald A, Young K, Egge E, Jebsen I, Sager EM, Scheel B, Søvik E, Ertzaas AK, Hofvind S, Abdelnoor M.

Acta Radiol. 2005 Nov;46(7):679-89.

PMID:
16372686
12.

The pathological and radiological features of screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed following arbitration of discordant double reading opinions.

Cornford EJ, Evans AJ, James JJ, Burrell HC, Pinder SE, Wilson AR.

Clin Radiol. 2005 Nov;60(11):1182-7.

PMID:
16223614
13.

Mammographic screening in women at increased risk of breast cancer after treatment of Hodgkin's disease.

Kwong A, Hancock SL, Bloom JR, Pal S, Birdwell RL, Mariscal C, Ikeda DM.

Breast J. 2008 Jan-Feb;14(1):39-48. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2007.00524.x.

PMID:
18186864
15.

Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway.

Hofvind S, Vacek PM, Skelly J, Weaver DL, Geller BM.

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Aug 6;100(15):1082-91. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djn224. Epub 2008 Jul 29.

16.

Inter-observer and intra-observer variability of mammogram interpretation: a field study.

Ciccone G, Vineis P, Frigerio A, Segnan N.

Eur J Cancer. 1992;28A(6-7):1054-8.

PMID:
1627374
17.

[The assessment of the impact of a double reading by expert readers in a mass mammographic study].

Brancato B, Ciatto S, Bricolo D, Bonardi R, Ambrogetti D, Zappa M, Miccinesi G, Tonegutti M, Pistolesi GF.

Radiol Med. 2000 Jul-Aug;100(1-2):21-3. Italian.

PMID:
11109446
18.

The efficacy of double reading mammograms in breast screening.

Anderson ED, Muir BB, Walsh JS, Kirkpatrick AE.

Clin Radiol. 1994 Apr;49(4):248-51.

PMID:
8162681
19.

Effect of human variability on independent double reading in screening mammography.

Beam CA, Sullivan DC, Layde PM.

Acad Radiol. 1996 Nov;3(11):891-7.

PMID:
8959178
20.

Can radiographers read screening mammograms?

Wivell G, Denton ER, Eve CB, Inglis JC, Harvey I.

Clin Radiol. 2003 Jan;58(1):63-7.

PMID:
12565207
Items per page

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk