AJR ARRS Membership
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sickles, E. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sickles, E. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 155, 755-761, Copyright © 1990 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

The usefulness of computers in managing the operation of a mammography screening practice

EA Sickles
Department of Radiology, University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco 94143.

A conventional desktop microcomputer can be programmed to carry out a wide variety of activities that are useful in the operation and management of a mammography screening practice. These include storage and retrieval of the records of screening examinations, direct entry of film interpretation data by the radiologist, automatic printing of examination reports, scheduling of screening appointments, tracking of follow-up procedures (including the generation of reminder letters to clients and referring physicians), and the conduct of medical audits of screening results. In general, computer-based activities can be completed more rapidly, more reliably, and at lower cost than the conventional operations they are designed to replace. All mammography screening practices can benefit from computer support.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. W. T. Leung and E. A. Sickles
Developing Asymmetry Identified on Mammography: Correlation with Imaging Outcome and Pathologic Findings
Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2007; 188(3): 667 - 675.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
E. S. Burnside, E. A. Sickles, R. E. Sohlich, and K. E. Dee
Differential Value of Comparison with Previous Examinations in Diagnostic Versus Screening Mammography
Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2002; 179(5): 1173 - 1177.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
E. A. Sickles, D. E. Wolverton, and K. E. Dee
Performance Parameters for Screening and Diagnostic Mammography: Specialist and General Radiologists
Radiology, September 1, 2002; 224(3): 861 - 869.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
R. E. Sohlich, E. A. Sickles, E. S. Burnside, and K. E. Dee
Interpreting Data from Audits When Screening and Diagnostic Mammography Outcomes Are Combined
Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2002; 178(3): 681 - 686.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
K. E. Dee and E. A. Sickles
Medical Audit of Diagnostic Mammography Examinations: Comparison with Screening Outcomes Obtained Concurrently
Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2001; 176(3): 729 - 733.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1990 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.