These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10531098)

  • 1. Two view mammography at incident screens: cost effectiveness analysis of policy options.
    Johnston K; Brown J
    BMJ; 1999 Oct; 319(7217):1097-102. PubMed ID: 10531098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A comparison of cancer detection rates achieved by breast cancer screening programmes by number of readers, for one and two view mammography: results from the UK National Health Service breast screening programme.
    Blanks RG; Wallis MG; Moss SM
    J Med Screen; 1998; 5(4):195-201. PubMed ID: 9934650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double versus single reading of mammograms.
    Brown J; Bryan S; Warren R
    BMJ; 1996 Mar; 312(7034):809-12. PubMed ID: 8608287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of two view versus one view procedures in London.
    Bryan S; Brown J; Warren R
    J Epidemiol Community Health; 1995 Feb; 49(1):70-8. PubMed ID: 7707010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading in digital mammography screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Posso M; Puig T; Carles M; Rué M; Canelo-Aybar C; Bonfill X
    Eur J Radiol; 2017 Nov; 96():40-49. PubMed ID: 29103474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Incremental cost-effectiveness of double-reading mammograms.
    Leivo T; Salminen T; Sintonen H; Tuominen R; Auerma K; Partanen K; Saari U; Hakama M; Heinonen OP
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 1999 Apr; 54(3):261-7. PubMed ID: 10445425
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. UK breast screening programme: how does it reflect the Forrest recommendations?
    Gerard K; Brown J; Johnston K
    J Med Screen; 1997; 4(1):10-5. PubMed ID: 9200055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Double versus single reading of mammograms in a breast cancer screening programme: a cost-consequence analysis.
    Posso MC; Puig T; Quintana MJ; Solà-Roca J; Bonfill X
    Eur Radiol; 2016 Sep; 26(9):3262-71. PubMed ID: 26747264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. UKCCCR multicentre randomised controlled trial of one and two view mammography in breast cancer screening.
    Wald NJ; Murphy P; Major P; Parkes C; Townsend J; Frost C
    BMJ; 1995 Nov; 311(7014):1189-93. PubMed ID: 7488893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Observer variability in cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening in a study of two versus one view mammography.
    Blanks RG; Wallis MG; Given-Wilson RM
    J Med Screen; 1999; 6(3):152-8. PubMed ID: 10572847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Results from 10 years of breast screening in Wales.
    Fielder H; Rogers C; Gower-Thomas K; Monypenny I; Dallimore N; Brook D; Greening S
    J Med Screen; 2001; 8(1):21-3. PubMed ID: 11373845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Efficiency of cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening: two versus one view mammography.
    Blanks RG; Given-Wilson RM; Moss SM
    J Med Screen; 1998; 5(3):141-5. PubMed ID: 9795875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Cost-effectiveness of different reading and referral strategies in mammography screening in the Netherlands.
    Groenewoud JH; Otten JD; Fracheboud J; Draisma G; van Ineveld BM; Holland R; Verbeek AL; de Koning HJ;
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2007 Apr; 102(2):211-8. PubMed ID: 17004116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Use of two view mammography compared with one view in the detection of small invasive cancers: further results from the National Health Service breast screening programme.
    Blanks RG; Moss SM; Wallis MG
    J Med Screen; 1997; 4(2):98-101. PubMed ID: 9275268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Cost-effectiveness analysis for breast cancer screening: double reading versus single + CAD reading.
    Sato M; Kawai M; Nishino Y; Shibuya D; Ohuchi N; Ishibashi T
    Breast Cancer; 2014 Sep; 21(5):532-41. PubMed ID: 23104393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The role of arbitration of discordant reports at double reading of screening mammograms.
    Ciatto S; Ambrogetti D; Risso G; Catarzi S; Morrone D; Mantellini P; Rosselli Del Turco M
    J Med Screen; 2005; 12(3):125-7. PubMed ID: 16156942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Program-specific cost-effectiveness analysis: breast cancer screening policies for a safety-net program.
    Melnikow J; Tancredi DJ; Yang Z; Ritley D; Jiang Y; Slee C; Popova S; Rylett P; Knutson K; Smalley S
    Value Health; 2013; 16(6):932-41. PubMed ID: 24041343
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Breast screening using 2D-mammography or integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) for single-reading or double-reading--evidence to guide future screening strategies.
    Houssami N; Macaskill P; Bernardi D; Caumo F; Pellegrini M; Brunelli S; Tuttobene P; Bricolo P; Fantò C; Valentini M; Ciatto S
    Eur J Cancer; 2014 Jul; 50(10):1799-1807. PubMed ID: 24746887
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Cost effectiveness of the NHS breast screening programme: life table model.
    Pharoah PD; Sewell B; Fitzsimmons D; Bennett HS; Pashayan N
    BMJ; 2013 May; 346():f2618. PubMed ID: 23661112
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Two-view versus single-view mammography at subsequent screening in a region of the Dutch breast screening programme.
    van Breest Smallenburg V; Duijm LE; den Heeten GJ; Groenewoud JH; Jansen FH; Fracheboud J; Plaisier ML; van Doorne-Nagtegaal HJ; Broeders MJ
    Eur J Radiol; 2012 Sep; 81(9):2189-94. PubMed ID: 21906898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.