Hendrick RE, Berns EA. 2000. Optimizing techniques in screen-film mammography. Radiologic Clinics of North America 38(4):viii, 701–718.
Hendrick RE, Klabunde C, Grivegnee A, Pou G, Ballard-Barbash R. 2002. Technical quality control practices in mammography screening programs in 22 countries. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 14(3):219–226.
High court rejects preemption claims, upholds law limiting use of “Napa” in wine labeling. 2004 (August 6.) Metropolitan News Enterprise. P. 1.
National Mammography Quality Assurance Advisory Committee, U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2004. NMQAAC Meeting: Monday, April 19, 2004 [Transcript]. [Online]. Available: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfAdvisory/details.cfm?mtg=507 [accessed December 8, 2004].
Pitney Hardin LLP. 2004. Supreme Court upholds ERISA preemption. New Jersey Employment Law Letter 12(11):853.
Rowden D, Affiliate Service Member, Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. 2003. The Mammography Quality Standards Act. Statement at the April 8, 2003, hearing of the Subcommittee on Aging, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 1990. Screening Mammography: Low-Cost Services Do Not Compromise Quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Wang J, Gray JE. 1998. Detection of small low-contrast objects in mammography: Effect of viewbox masking and luminance. American Journal of Roentgenology 170(1):105–108.
Waynant RW, Chakrabarti K, Kaczmarek RA, Dagenais I. 1999. Testing optimum viewing conditions for mammographic image displays. Journal of Digital Imaging 12(2 Suppl 1):209–210.
Waynant RW, Chakrabarti K, Kaczmerak R, Suleiman O, Rowberg A. 1998. Improved sensitivity and specificity of mammograms by producing uniform luminance from viewboxes. Journal of Digital Imaging 11(3 Suppl 1):189–191.