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)

  • 21. Predicting the risk of a false-positive test for women following a mammography screening programme.
    Njor SH; Olsen AH; Schwartz W; Vejborg I; Lynge E
    J Med Screen; 2007; 14(2):94-7. PubMed ID: 17626709
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Investigating the Heterogeneity in Women's Preferences for Breast Screening: Does the Communication of Risk Matter?
    Vass CM; Rigby D; Payne K
    Value Health; 2018 Feb; 21(2):219-228. PubMed ID: 29477404
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Insights Into Breast Cancer Screening: A Computer Simulation of Two Contemporary Screening Strategies.
    Carter KJ; Castro F; Morcos RN
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Mar; 210(3):564-571. PubMed ID: 29323554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Breast cancer screening in 21 countries: delivery of services, notification of results and outcomes ascertainment.
    Ballard-Barbash R; Klabunde C; Paci E; Broeders M; Coleman EA; Fracheboud J; Bouchard F; Rennert G; Shapiro S
    Eur J Cancer Prev; 1999 Oct; 8(5):417-26. PubMed ID: 10548397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Breast cancer screening in the United States and Canada, 1994: socioeconomic gradients persist.
    Katz SJ; Zemencuk JK; Hofer TP
    Am J Public Health; 2000 May; 90(5):799-803. PubMed ID: 10800435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. [Methods to increase participation in cancer screening programmes].
    Giorgi Rossi P; Camilloni L; Cogo C; Federici A; Ferroni E; Furnari G; Giordano L; Grazzini G; Iossa A; Jimenez B; Palazzi M; Palazzo F; Spadea T; Senore C; Borgia P; Guasticchi G
    Epidemiol Prev; 2012 Jan; 36(1 Suppl 1):1-104. PubMed ID: 22418841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Why do some participants in colorectal cancer screening choose not to undergo colonoscopy following a positive test result? A qualitative study.
    Bie AKL; Brodersen J
    Scand J Prim Health Care; 2018 Sep; 36(3):262-271. PubMed ID: 30238859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Public stated preferences and predicted uptake for genome-based colorectal cancer screening.
    Groothuis-Oudshoorn CG; Fermont JM; van Til JA; Ijzerman MJ
    BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2014 Mar; 14():18. PubMed ID: 24642027
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of screening mammography.
    Stout NK; Rosenberg MA; Trentham-Dietz A; Smith MA; Robinson SM; Fryback DG
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2006 Jun; 98(11):774-82. PubMed ID: 16757702
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The relative economics of screening for colorectal cancer, breast cancer and cervical cancer.
    Gyrd-Hansen D
    Crit Rev Oncol Hematol; 1999 Nov; 32(2):133-44. PubMed ID: 10612013
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. How effective are breast cancer screening programmes by mammography? Review of the current evidence.
    Schopper D; de Wolf C
    Eur J Cancer; 2009 Jul; 45(11):1916-23. PubMed ID: 19398327
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Does attribute framing in discrete choice experiments influence willingness to pay? Results from a discrete choice experiment in screening for colorectal cancer.
    Howard K; Salkeld G
    Value Health; 2009; 12(2):354-63. PubMed ID: 18657102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Is mammography screening history a predictor of future breast cancer risk?
    Andersen SB; Törnberg S; Kilpeläinen S; Von Euler-Chelpin M; Njor SH
    Eur J Epidemiol; 2015 Feb; 30(2):143-9. PubMed ID: 25421784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Performance of a subsidised mammographic screening programme in Malaysia, a middle-income Asian country.
    Lee M; Mariapun S; Rajaram N; Teo SH; Yip CH
    BMC Public Health; 2017 Jan; 17(1):127. PubMed ID: 28129762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Cost implications of routine mammography screening of women 50-69 years in the county of Funen, Denmark.
    Bech M; Gyrd-Hansen D
    Health Policy; 2000 Nov; 54(2):125-41. PubMed ID: 11094266
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Survival or Mortality: Does Risk Attribute Framing Influence Decision-Making Behavior in a Discrete Choice Experiment?
    Veldwijk J; Essers BA; Lambooij MS; Dirksen CD; Smit HA; de Wit GA
    Value Health; 2016; 19(2):202-9. PubMed ID: 27021754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. [Mammographic screening for breast cancer--a cost-benefit analysis].
    Erichsen GG
    Nord Med; 1990; 105(2):64-6. PubMed ID: 2106129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The effect of presenting information about invasive follow-up testing on individuals' noninvasive colorectal cancer screening participation decision: results from a discrete choice experiment.
    Benning TM; Dellaert BG; Severens JL; Dirksen CD
    Value Health; 2014 Jul; 17(5):578-87. PubMed ID: 25128051
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. [Health economics analysis of breast cancer screening].
    Boncz I; Sebestyén A; Gulácsi L; Pál M; Dózsa C
    Magy Onkol; 2003; 47(2):149-54. PubMed ID: 12975661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.