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 *

124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11747045)

  • 1. Analysing public preferences for cancer screening programmes.
    Gyrd-Hansen D; Søgaard J
    Health Econ; 2001 Oct; 10(7):617-34. PubMed ID: 11747045
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Cost-benefit analysis of mammography screening in Denmark based on discrete ranking data.
    Gyrd-Hansen D
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2000; 16(3):811-21. PubMed ID: 11028136
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. What determines individuals' preferences for colorectal cancer screening programmes? A discrete choice experiment.
    van Dam L; Hol L; de Bekker-Grob EW; Steyerberg EW; Kuipers EJ; Habbema JD; Essink-Bot ML; van Leerdam ME
    Eur J Cancer; 2010 Jan; 46(1):150-9. PubMed ID: 19683432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Screening mammography and public health policy: the need for perspective.
    Wright CJ; Mueller CB
    Lancet; 1995 Jul; 346(8966):29-32. PubMed ID: 7603143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Cancer screening uptake: association with individual characteristics, geographic distribution, and time trends in Italy.
    Carrozzi G; Sampaolo L; Bolognesi L; Sardonini L; Bertozzi N; Giorgi Rossi P; Zappa M; Baldissera S; Campostrini S; Ferrante G; Masocco M; Minardi V; D'Argenzio A; Moghadam PF; Quarchioni E; Ramigni M; Trinito MO; Salmaso S;
    Epidemiol Prev; 2015; 39(3 Suppl 1):9-18. PubMed ID: 26405772
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The cost-effectiveness of mammography screening: evidence from a microsimulation model for New Zealand.
    Szeto KL; Devlin NJ
    Health Policy; 1996 Nov; 38(2):101-15. PubMed ID: 10160378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A cost utility analysis of mammography screening in Australia.
    Hall J; Gerard K; Salkeld G; Richardson J
    Soc Sci Med; 1992 May; 34(9):993-1004. PubMed ID: 1631612
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Swiss Medical Board Mammography screening predictions for Switzerland: importance of time-periods.
    de Koning HJ; Heijnsdijk EA
    J Med Screen; 2015 Dec; 22(4):201-6. PubMed ID: 26018779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Testing the convergent validity of the contingent valuation and travel cost methods in valuing the benefits of health care.
    Clarke PM
    Health Econ; 2002 Mar; 11(2):117-27. PubMed ID: 11921310
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Mammography screening in Germany: how, when and why?].
    Bick U
    Rofo; 2006 Oct; 178(10):957-69. PubMed ID: 17021975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Stated Preference for Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review of the Literature, 1990-2013.
    Mansfield C; Tangka FK; Ekwueme DU; Smith JL; Guy GP; Li C; Hauber AB
    Prev Chronic Dis; 2016 Feb; 13():E27. PubMed ID: 26916898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Attitudes of Colorado health professionals toward breast and cervical cancer screening in Hispanic women.
    Bakemeier RF; Krebs LU; Murphy JR; Shen Z; Ryals T
    J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 1995; (18):95-100. PubMed ID: 8562228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Is it cost effective to introduce screening programmes for colorectal cancer? Illustrating the principles of optimal resource allocation.
    Gyrd-Hansen D
    Health Policy; 1997 Sep; 41(3):189-99. PubMed ID: 10170088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Costs and cost-effectiveness of a clinical intervention to increase mammography utilization in an inner city public health hospital.
    Thompson B; Thompson LA; Andersen MR; Hager S; Taylor V; Urban N
    Prev Med; 2002 Jul; 35(1):87-96. PubMed ID: 12079445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Breast screening in north India: a cost-effective cancer prevention strategy.
    Pandey S; Chandravati
    Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2013; 14(2):853-7. PubMed ID: 23621251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Implications of false-positive results for future cancer screenings.
    Taksler GB; Keating NL; Rothberg MB
    Cancer; 2018 Jun; 124(11):2390-2398. PubMed ID: 29682740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Rationalising the 'irrational': a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses.
    Ryan M; Watson V; Entwistle V
    Health Econ; 2009 Mar; 18(3):321-36. PubMed ID: 18651601
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Breast cancer screening; cost-effective in practice?
    De Koning HJ
    Eur J Radiol; 2000 Jan; 33(1):32-7. PubMed ID: 10674787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic versus organised mammography screening in Switzerland.
    de Gelder R; Bulliard JL; de Wolf C; Fracheboud J; Draisma G; Schopper D; de Koning HJ
    Eur J Cancer; 2009 Jan; 45(1):127-38. PubMed ID: 19038540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.