Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:2068300rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0000768lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:2068300lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0006141lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:2068300lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1522577lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:2068300lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0449911lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:issue2lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:dateCreated1991-8-9lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:abstractTextA retrospective study involving 498 women with a total of 666 breast lesions was undertaken to determine the relative efficacy of one- and two-view mammography in the follow-up evaluation of "low-suspicion" abnormal mammographic findings. These abnormalities consisted of well-defined masses (47.1%), well-defined punctate microcalcifications (20.9%), and parenchymal asymmetry (32.0%). Confidence in the adequacy of the single-view follow-up was high in 91% of cases. The addition of the second mammographic view changed the one-view interpretation in approximately 1% of all cases. Two cancers were detected during the initial follow-up period. Both cancers were detected with single-view and standard two-view follow-up examinations, with high confidence. In this controlled retrospective study, the single-view follow-up examination was adequate for follow-up of most low-suspicion mammographic abnormalities. Monitoring by physicians, however, would be necessary to prevent an unacceptable number of patient recalls, which could make the one-view follow-up study impractical to use in some practices.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:citationSubsetAIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:monthAuglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:issn0033-8419lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:authorpubmed-author:HayesC WCWlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:authorpubmed-author:NealM PMPlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:authorpubmed-author:ConwayW FWFlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:authorpubmed-author:BoschH AHAlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:authorpubmed-author:DatocP DPDlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:volume180lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:pagination387-91lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:dateRevised2006-11-15lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2068300-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2068300-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2068300-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2068300-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2068300-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2068300-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2068300-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2068300-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2068300-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2068300-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2068300-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2068300-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2068300-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2068300-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2068300-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2068300-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2068300-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:2068300-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:year1991lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:articleTitleMammographic follow-up of nonpalpable low-suspicion breast abnormalities: one versus two views.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:affiliationDepartment of Radiology, Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, VA 23298-0615.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:2068300pubmed:publicationTypeComparative Studylld:pubmed