208 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10856064)
1. US women's attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey.
Schwartz LM; Woloshin S; Sox HC; Fischhoff B; Welch HG
BMJ; 2000 Jun; 320(7250):1635-40. PubMed ID: 10856064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. US women's attitudes to false-positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross-sectional survey.
Schwartz LM; Woloshin S; Sox HC; Fischhoff B; Welch HG
West J Med; 2000 Nov; 173(5):307-12. PubMed ID: 11069862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Women's information needs about ductal carcinoma in situ before mammographic screening and after diagnosis: a qualitative study.
Prinjha S; Evans J; McPherson A
J Med Screen; 2006; 13(3):110-4. PubMed ID: 17007650
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Cumulative 6-Year Risk of Screen-Detected Ductal Carcinoma In Situ by Screening Frequency.
Sprague BL; Chen S; Miglioretti DL; Gard CC; Tice JA; Hubbard RA; Aiello Bowles EJ; Kaufman PA; Kerlikowske K
JAMA Netw Open; 2023 Feb; 6(2):e230166. PubMed ID: 36808238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Women's Experiences of Inaccurate Breast Cancer Screening Results: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Meta-synthesis.
Health Quality Ontario
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser; 2016; 16(16):1-22. PubMed ID: 27468327
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The mammography screening detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer according to women's characteristics: is it the same?
Théberge I; Vandal N; Guertin MH; Perron L
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2019 Apr; 174(2):525-535. PubMed ID: 30564969
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Overcalling low-risk findings: grouped amorphous calcifications found at screening mammography associated with minimal cancer risk.
Iwase M; Tsunoda H; Nakayama K; Morishita E; Hayashi N; Suzuki K; Yamauchi H
Breast Cancer; 2017 Jul; 24(4):579-584. PubMed ID: 27873170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study.
Bernardi D; Macaskill P; Pellegrini M; Valentini M; Fantò C; Ostillio L; Tuttobene P; Luparia A; Houssami N
Lancet Oncol; 2016 Aug; 17(8):1105-1113. PubMed ID: 27345635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Clinical and radiological features of breast tumors according to history of false-positive results in mammography screening.
Domingo L; Romero A; Blanch J; Salas D; Sánchez M; Rodríguez-Arana A; Ferrer J; Ibáñez J; Vega A; Laso MS; Castells X; Sala M
Cancer Epidemiol; 2013 Oct; 37(5):660-5. PubMed ID: 23962702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Women's perceptions of breast cancer screening. Spanish screening programme survey.
Baena-Cañada JM; Rosado-Varela P; Expósito-Álvarez I; González-Guerrero M; Nieto-Vera J; Benítez-Rodríguez E
Breast; 2014 Dec; 23(6):883-8. PubMed ID: 25456103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Women's anxieties caused by false positives in mammography screening: a contingent valuation survey.
Yasunaga H; Ide H; Imamura T; Ohe K
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2007 Jan; 101(1):59-64. PubMed ID: 16821083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. How information about overdetection changes breast cancer screening decisions: a mediation analysis within a randomised controlled trial.
Hersch J; McGeechan K; Barratt A; Jansen J; Irwig L; Jacklyn G; Houssami N; Dhillon H; McCaffery K
BMJ Open; 2017 Oct; 7(10):e016246. PubMed ID: 28988168
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The shifting nature of women's experiences and perceptions of ductal carcinoma in situ.
Kennedy F; Harcourt D; Rumsey N
J Adv Nurs; 2012 Apr; 68(4):856-67. PubMed ID: 21790736
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence.
Bleyer A; Welch HG
N Engl J Med; 2012 Nov; 367(21):1998-2005. PubMed ID: 23171096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Balancing sensitivity and specificity: sixteen year's of experience from the mammography screening programme in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Utzon-Frank N; Vejborg I; von Euler-Chelpin M; Lynge E
Cancer Epidemiol; 2011 Oct; 35(5):393-8. PubMed ID: 21239242
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Active surveillance of women diagnosed with atypical ductal hyperplasia on core needle biopsy may spare many women potentially unnecessary surgery, but at the risk of undertreatment for a minority: 10-year surgical outcomes of 114 consecutive cases from a single center.
Farshid G; Edwards S; Kollias J; Gill PG
Mod Pathol; 2018 Mar; 31(3):395-405. PubMed ID: 29099502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Mammography screening for breast cancer in Copenhagen April 1991-March 1997. Mammography Screening Evaluation Group.
Lynge E
APMIS Suppl; 1998; 83():1-44. PubMed ID: 9850674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. How Do Women View Risk-Based Mammography Screening? A Qualitative Study.
He X; Schifferdecker KE; Ozanne EM; Tosteson ANA; Woloshin S; Schwartz LM
J Gen Intern Med; 2018 Nov; 33(11):1905-1912. PubMed ID: 30066118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Screening mammography for women aged 40 to 49 years at average risk for breast cancer: an evidence-based analysis.
Medical Advisory Secretariat
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser; 2007; 7(1):1-32. PubMed ID: 23074501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effect of false-positives and women's characteristics on long-term adherence to breast cancer screening.
Román R; Sala M; De La Vega M; Natal C; Galceran J; González-Román I; Baroja A; Zubizarreta R; Ascunce N; Salas D; Castells X
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2011 Nov; 130(2):543-52. PubMed ID: 21617920
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
