Literature DB >> 26704912

Initiative to Improve Mammogram Interpretation.

Kim A Adcock.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2004        PMID： 26704912      PMCID： PMC4690712          DOI： 10.7812/TPP/04.969

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perm J        ISSN： 1552-5767


× No keyword cloud information.
  10 in total

1.  Positive predictive value of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.

Authors:  M A Lacquement; D Mitchell; A B Hollingsworth
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 6.113

2.  Assessing mammographers' accuracy. A comparison of clinical and test performance.

Authors:  C M Rutter; S Taplin
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships.

Authors:  Laura Esserman; Helen Cowley; Carey Eberle; Alastair Kirkpatrick; Sophia Chang; Kevin Berbaum; Alastair Gale
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2002-03-06       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Staging reclassification affects breast cancer survival.

Authors:  Ivo A Olivotto; Pauline T Truong; Caroline H Speers
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-12-01       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy.

Authors:  S G Orel; N Kay; C Reynolds; D C Sullivan
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Mammography in 53,803 women from the New Hampshire mammography network.

Authors:  S P Poplack; A N Tosteson; M R Grove; W A Wells; P A Carney
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Frequency and predictive value of a mammographic recommendation for short-interval follow-up.

Authors:  Shagufta Yasmeen; Patrick S Romano; Mary Pettinger; Rowan T Chlebowski; John A Robbins; Dorothy S Lane; Susan L Hendrix
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2003-03-19       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists.

Authors:  Edward A Sickles; Dulcy E Wolverton; Katherine E Dee
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Philip W Chu; Diana L Miglioretti; Edward A Sickles; Roger Blanks; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Janet K Bobo; Nancy C Lee; Matthew G Wallis; Julietta Patnick; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-10-22       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  The positive predictive value of mammographic signs: a review of 425 non-palpable breast lesions.

Authors:  H C Burrell; S E Pinder; A R Wilson; A J Evans; L J Yeoman; C W Elston; I O Ellis
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 2.350
  10 in total
  3 in total

1.  Radiologists' attitudes and use of mammography audit reports.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Berta Geller; Natalia Vukshich Oster; Patricia A Carney; Diana L Miglioretti; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Edward A Sickles; Tracy Onega; Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomized clinical trial designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Andy Bogart; Edward A Sickles; Robert Smith; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega; Diana L Miglioretti; Robert Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Berta M Geller
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Improving radiologist's ability in identifying particular abnormal lesions on mammograms through training test set with immediate feedback.

Authors:  Phuong Dung Yun Trieu; Sarah J Lewis; Tong Li; Karen Ho; Dennis J Wong; Oanh T M Tran; Louise Puslednik; Deborah Black; Patrick C Brennan
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-05-10       Impact factor: 4.379
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.