Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study.
about
Breast Cancer: Conventional Diagnosis and Treatment Modalities and Recent Patents and TechnologiesBuilding for tomorrow today: opportunities and directions in radiology resident researchCancer screening in the United States, 2014: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screeningBreast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society.The need for supplemental breast cancer screening modalities: a perspective of population-based breast cancer screening programs in Japan.Reported mammographic density: film-screen versus digital acquisitionDuctal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a surgical perspective.Factors Associated With Rates of False-Positive and False-Negative Results From Digital Mammography Screening: An Analysis of Registry Data.Contrast-enhanced ultrasound improved performance of breast imaging reporting and data system evaluation of critical breast lesionsBudget impact analysis of switching to digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: a discrete event simulation model.Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography.Mammographic performance in a population-based screening program: before, during, and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital mammographyEffects of screening and systemic adjuvant therapy on ER-specific US breast cancer mortality.Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts.Agreement of mammographic measures of volumetric breast density to MRI.Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performanceCriteria for identifying radiologists with acceptable screening mammography interpretive performance on basis of multiple performance measures.Screening ultrasound as an adjunct to mammography in women with mammographically dense breastsTrends in breast biopsy pathology diagnoses among women undergoing mammography in the United States: a report from the Breast Cancer Surveillance ConsortiumIdentifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study.Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts.Comparing sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography in the United States and DenmarkBreast Cancer Characteristics Associated With Digital Versus Film-Screen Mammography for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers.Are Qualitative Assessments of Background Parenchymal Enhancement, Amount of Fibroglandular Tissue on MR Images, and Mammographic Density Associated with Breast Cancer Risk?Performance of digital screening mammography in a population-based cohort of black and white women.Breast cancer screening in the era of density notification legislation: summary of 2014 Massachusetts experience and suggestion of an evidence-based management algorithm by multi-disciplinary expert panel.Geographic variation in volumetric breast density between screening regions in the Netherlands.Breast Tumor Prognostic Characteristics and Biennial vs Annual Mammography, Age, and Menopausal Status.Effects of digital mammography uptake on downstream breast-related care among older women.The relationship of breast density in mammography and magnetic resonance imaging in high-risk women and women with breast cancerTipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years: a comparative modeling study of riskFactors Associated with Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Use among Medicare Beneficiaries with Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer.Impact of the Introduction of Digital Mammography in an Organized Screening Program on the Recall and Detection RateDiagnostic imaging and biopsy pathways following abnormal screen-film and digital screening mammography.Benefits and Harms of Screening Mammography by Comorbidity and Age: A Qualitative Synthesis of Observational Studies and Decision AnalysesAssessing health care use and cost consequences of a new screening modality: the case of digital mammography.Comparison of Clinical and Automated Breast Density Measurements: Implications for Risk Prediction and Supplemental ScreeningReducing false-positive biopsies: a pilot study to reduce benign biopsy rates for BI-RADS 4A/B assessments through testing risk stratification and new thresholds for intervention.Outcomes of screening mammography by frequency, breast density, and postmenopausal hormone therapyIs Age-targeted full-field digital mammography screening cost-effective in emerging countries? A micro simulation model.
P2860
Q26783705-2A32E176-A053-4696-B1C6-5F783354D569Q26864436-781678B4-8066-4019-8A29-84344439449AQ27025805-2739A967-BE77-4541-8F3D-6B31AC8A0ED9Q27347760-6B35ED78-2E58-446F-9706-0F4CA1A034BFQ30249866-B229B7BF-BB37-4305-9BB0-B4ABE31B2546Q30414634-9BB2117E-3384-4690-8D62-E66039DAEE5AQ30463534-A6FBCE05-2875-43A8-AF43-80FED3B1EE91Q31036427-994B4991-7717-4D05-822F-97A9EC54E64FQ31111425-47D6D4F5-85F5-4497-8849-9E80725B5225Q33617993-62B91A9B-0A27-45D3-B2D1-A175A0ADA903Q33792616-D8BE082E-10C5-4F5F-A6CC-4F3059967185Q34681082-4590EAB6-407D-45D4-B506-3228E908F033Q34736052-B1278EE8-82BC-43A7-AC63-87388739DECAQ35039764-7ED93E94-4E0F-408A-BCAC-52BE49FFFB8FQ35064008-807FCA3C-163C-4C15-8AD8-9B26C9AC81B6Q35100880-9105DA75-53A6-40C5-8B82-0E41226000ADQ35206455-D2AC7482-7FDD-4A40-9530-C252B8B14679Q35353726-ED84E22A-F431-47B0-B4B9-81C837F6EA56Q35567577-9D1ADD83-B345-43EF-9D05-5681C421D449Q35646902-E6C8C8C1-D912-4B4C-B2C5-92F5EAB0C7CFQ35683407-67642738-21CB-41C5-9585-6C00DF26DEF0Q35957551-E41D0BDF-57D2-4729-8BD0-26AE26B89DFFQ35990552-CC07283B-9447-496F-917D-890604414FA3Q36009678-2570658B-FF5C-40A7-B699-5EA38A94C5C7Q36054414-D2ABCE62-4574-4405-964F-E8D56722B4F7Q36117322-7795392F-2B2C-4EE9-8439-F21F81BB64A6Q36128068-638B8234-0232-48BA-846A-36969AA98758Q36277707-A5F11602-7987-47F9-BBFB-7F454E9A1105Q36388896-516CAB7A-4B43-48C3-A24E-66E837B43885Q36391200-C900532E-8323-48E2-80A2-10E2C7855C4AQ36460671-D1243280-3DE7-4ECB-9383-E28D2B6C0357Q36479792-ADD58EE0-6CE8-47B4-958D-F16E6C2E9E31Q36678269-D283C87B-0B50-419E-9791-581D6C1BA673Q36806768-1F260BF9-352D-42FC-9C14-3A92292A7D1CQ36808978-CD20D006-0091-4B8B-BD90-38A74823978EQ36833365-F533949F-1A07-4C35-B139-B4F6712E5BBBQ36950678-F00E5AF1-15D7-45E3-AC96-6902FDEA3EC1Q36962500-34E7CD50-F67C-4BF6-B645-2DBBF5965E3AQ36976948-F87FC97E-90E0-4ADD-85DE-FF47E451DAB4Q37076741-04B499BF-B215-4D45-9FE4-9423ACF63D86
P2860
Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study.
description
article científic
@ca
article scientifique
@fr
articolo scientifico
@it
artigo científico
@pt
bilimsel makale
@tr
scientific article published on October 2011
@en
vedecký článok
@sk
vetenskaplig artikel
@sv
videnskabelig artikel
@da
vědecký článek
@cs
name
Comparative effectiveness of d ...... United States: a cohort study.
@en
Comparative effectiveness of d ...... United States: a cohort study.
@nl
type
label
Comparative effectiveness of d ...... United States: a cohort study.
@en
Comparative effectiveness of d ...... United States: a cohort study.
@nl
prefLabel
Comparative effectiveness of d ...... United States: a cohort study.
@en
Comparative effectiveness of d ...... United States: a cohort study.
@nl
P2093
P2860
P1476
Comparative effectiveness of d ...... United States: a cohort study.
@en
P2093
Berta M Geller
Bonnie C Yankaskas
Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium
Constance D Lehman
Diana L Miglioretti
Edward A Sickles
Karla Kerlikowske
Rebecca A Hubbard
Stephen H Taplin
P2860
P304
P356
10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00005
P407
P577
2011-10-01T00:00:00Z