Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
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 Brown, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Fintor, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Brown, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Fintor, L.

Radiology, Vol 195, 529-532, Copyright © 1995 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

U.S. screening mammography services with mobile units: results from the National Survey of Mammography Facilities

ML Brown and L Fintor
National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.

PURPOSE: To investigate elements of mobile facilities for mammography in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The prevalence and performance of mobile facilities for mammography in the United States were studied with regard to cost, price, quality assurance, and access. Data were acquired from the National Cancer Institute's National Survey of Mammography Facilities, conducted in 1992. RESULTS: Of the 1,057 facilities surveyed, 2.4% were identified as mobile and accounted for 3% of mammography examinations performed. All mobile facilities reported accreditation by the American College of Radiology, and 92% were in Statistically Metropolitan Areas. Most were affiliated with community hospitals or private radiology practice and were more likely to be associated with lower fees, convenient operating hours, batch interpretation, and computerized reporting than were their stationary counterparts. CONCLUSION: Mobile mammography facilities compare favorably with stationary facilities. The use of these mobile units in the United States, however, has been limited.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
N. K. Stout, M. A. Rosenberg, A. Trentham-Dietz, M. A. Smith, S. M. Robinson, and D. G. Fryback
Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of screening mammography.
J Natl Cancer Inst, June 7, 2006; 98(11): 774 - 782.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ANN INTERN MEDHome page
K. Kerlikowske, R. Smith-Bindman, B.-M. Ljung, and D. Grady
Evaluation of Abnormal Mammography Results and Palpable Breast Abnormalities
Ann Intern Med, August 19, 2003; 139(4): 274 - 284.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
K. Kerlikowske, P. Salzmann, K. A. Phillips, J. A. Cauley, and S. R. Cummings
Continuing Screening Mammography in Women Aged 70 to 79 Years: Impact on Life Expectancy and Cost-effectiveness
JAMA, December 8, 1999; 282(22): 2156 - 2163.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1995 by the Radiological Society of North America.