88 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15996864)
1. Interobserver agreement and consensus over the esthetic evaluation of conservative treatment for breast cancer.
Cardoso MJ; Cardoso J; Santos AC; Barros H; Cardoso de Oliveira M
Breast; 2006 Feb; 15(1):52-7. PubMed ID: 15996864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Turning subjective into objective: the BCCT.core software for evaluation of cosmetic results in breast cancer conservative treatment.
Cardoso MJ; Cardoso J; Amaral N; Azevedo I; Barreau L; Bernardo M; Christie D; Costa S; Fitzal F; Fougo JL; Johansen J; Macmillan D; Mano MP; Regolo L; Rosa J; Teixeira L; Vrieling C
Breast; 2007 Oct; 16(5):456-61. PubMed ID: 17606373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Is face-only photographic view enough for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment?
Cardoso MJ; Magalhães A; Almeida T; Costa S; Vrieling C; Christie D; Johansen J; Cardoso JS
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2008 Dec; 112(3):565-8. PubMed ID: 18204895
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Factors determining esthetic outcome after breast cancer conservative treatment.
Cardoso MJ; Cardoso J; Santos AC; Vrieling C; Christie D; Liljegren G; Azevedo I; Johansen J; Rosa J; Amaral N; Saaristo R; Sacchini V; Barros H; Oliveira MC
Breast J; 2007; 13(2):140-6. PubMed ID: 17319854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Choosing observers for evaluation of aesthetic results in breast cancer conservative treatment.
Cardoso MJ; Santos AC; Cardoso J; Barros H; Cardoso De Oliveira M
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2005 Mar; 61(3):879-81. PubMed ID: 15708270
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparing two objective methods for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment.
Cardoso MJ; Cardoso JS; Wild T; Krois W; Fitzal F
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2009 Jul; 116(1):149-52. PubMed ID: 18777134
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [Poor esthetic results after conservative treatment of breast cancer. Technics of partial breast reconstruction].
Petit JY; Rigaut L; Zekri A; Le M
Ann Chir Plast Esthet; 1989; 34(2):103-8. PubMed ID: 2472100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Objective assessment of aesthetic outcome after breast conserving therapy: subjective third party panel rating and objective BCCT.core software evaluation.
Heil J; Carolus A; Dahlkamp J; Golatta M; Domschke C; Schuetz F; Blumenstein M; Rauch G; Sohn C
Breast; 2012 Feb; 21(1):61-5. PubMed ID: 21852135
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Outcome measurements in scleroderma: results from a delphi exercise.
Gazi H; Pope JE; Clements P; Medsger TA; Martin RW; Merkel PA; Kahaleh B; Wollheim FA; Baron M; Csuka ME; Emery P; Belch JF; Hayat S; Lally EV; Korn JH; Czirjak L; Herrick A; Voskuyl AE; Bruehlmann P; Inanc M; Furst DE; Black C; Ellman MH; Moreland LW; Rothfield NF; Hsu V; Mayes M; McKown KM; Krieg T; Siebold JR
J Rheumatol; 2007 Mar; 34(3):501-9. PubMed ID: 17299843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Evaluation of breast cosmetic changes with a computer-software; the breast cancer conservative treatment cosmetic results (BCCT. core) in hypofractionated whole breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery-supplementary analysis of multicenter single-arm confirmatory trial: JCOG0906.
Nozaki M; Kagami Y; Takahashi M; Machida R; Sekino Y; Shibata T; Ito Y; Nishimura Y; Teshima T; Ushijima H; Nagata Y; Matsumoto Y; Akimoto T; Takahashi K; Murayama S; Uno T; Tsujino K; Hamamoto Y; Nakagawa K; Kodaira T; Hiraoka M;
Breast Cancer; 2022 Nov; 29(6):1042-1049. PubMed ID: 35861936
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Agreement of quantitative subjective evaluation of esthetic changes in implant dentistry by patients and practitioners.
Esposito M; Grusovin MG; Worthington HV
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2009; 24(2):309-15. PubMed ID: 19492647
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Interobserver agreement in the interpretation of single-field digital fundus images for diabetic retinopathy screening.
Ruamviboonsuk P; Teerasuwanajak K; Tiensuwan M; Yuttitham K;
Ophthalmology; 2006 May; 113(5):826-32. PubMed ID: 16650679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Towards an intelligent medical system for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment.
Cardoso JS; Cardoso MJ
Artif Intell Med; 2007 Jun; 40(2):115-26. PubMed ID: 17420117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Lipomodelling for correction of breast conservative treatment sequelae. Medicolegal aspects. Expert opinion on five problematic clinical cases].
Gosset J; Flageul G; Toussoun G; Guérin N; Tourasse C; Delay E
Ann Chir Plast Esthet; 2008 Apr; 53(2):190-8. PubMed ID: 18054820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Excellent interobserver agreement on grading the extent of residual carcinoma after preoperative chemoradiation in esophageal and esophagogastric junction carcinoma: a reliable predictor for patient outcome.
Wu TT; Chirieac LR; Abraham SC; Krasinskas AM; Wang H; Rashid A; Correa AM; Hofstetter WL; Ajani JA; Swisher SG
Am J Surg Pathol; 2007 Jan; 31(1):58-64. PubMed ID: 17197919
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Three-dimensional digital evaluation of breast symmetry after breast conservation therapy.
Moyer HR; Carlson GW; Styblo TM; Losken A
J Am Coll Surg; 2008 Aug; 207(2):227-32. PubMed ID: 18656051
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Intra- and interobserver reproducibility of vertebral endplate signal (modic) changes in the lumbar spine: the Nordic Modic Consensus Group classification.
Jensen TS; Sorensen JS; Kjaer P
Acta Radiol; 2007 Sep; 48(7):748-54. PubMed ID: 17729006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Functional recovery from cancer surgery: estimation of expectations.
Hollender J; Gonnella C; Parker D
Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 1979 Feb; 60(2):45-9. PubMed ID: 464767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Q-sort assessment vs visual analog scale in the evaluation of smile esthetics.
Schabel BJ; McNamara JA; Franchi L; Baccetti T
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Apr; 135(4 Suppl):S61-71. PubMed ID: 19362268
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. High inter-observer agreement in immunohistochemical evaluation of HER-2/neu expression in breast cancer: a multicentre GEFPICS study.
Lacroix-Triki M; Mathoulin-Pelissier S; Ghnassia JP; Macgrogan G; Vincent-Salomon A; Brouste V; Mathieu MC; Roger P; Bibeau F; Jacquemier J; Penault-Llorca F; Arnould L
Eur J Cancer; 2006 Nov; 42(17):2946-53. PubMed ID: 16989997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
