Abstract
No public abstract is available from the verified source records.
D. O’driscoll, M.G. Wallis
Abstract
Authors
Institutions
No ROR-resolved institution is linked to this work yet.
Provenance
crossref
Confidence 100%
unpaywall
Confidence 95%
datacite
Confidence 0%
No local reference links have been materialized yet.
No local citing links have been materialized yet.
Quality assurance: how to audit your own mammography practice
10.1016/s0033-8389(22)02500-3 · 1992
Unresolved referenced work
Kept as external metadata until matched
Screening for breast cancer in Nijmegen. Report of 6 screening rounds, 1975–1986
10.1002/ijc.2910430209 · 1989
Initial versus subsequent screening mammography: comparison of findings and their prognostic significance
10.2214/ajr.164.5.7717214 · 1995
Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer
10.1016/s0033-8389(22)02494-0 · 1992
Proportion of cancers detected at the first incident screen which were false negative at the prevalent screen
10.1016/s0960-9776(96)90001-6 · 1996
Second round cancers: how many were visible on the first round of the UK National Breast Screening Programme, three years earlier?
10.1016/s0009-9260(98)80029-9 · 1998
Obtaining previous mammograms for comparison: usefulness and costs
10.2214/ajr.163.5.7976879 · 1994
Normal mammograms and the practice of obtaining previous mammograms
10.1148/radiology.198.3.8628851 · 1996
The influence of previous films on screening mammographic interpretation and detection of breast carcinoma
10.1016/s0009-9260(97)80329-7 · 1997
The significance of new mammographic densities and microcalcification in the second round of breast screening
10.1016/s0009-9260(99)91159-5 · 1999
Comparing new radiographs with those obtained previously
10.2214/ajr.172.1.9888727 · 1999
Unresolved referenced work
1995
No additional external references are available.