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 *

128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16468469)

  • 1. Screening and diagnostic mammograms: why the gold standard does not shine more brightly.
    Sobti A; Sobti P; Keith LG
    Int J Fertil Womens Med; 2005; 50(5 Pt 1):199-206. PubMed ID: 16468469
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Frequency and predictive value of a mammographic recommendation for short-interval follow-up.
    Yasmeen S; Romano PS; Pettinger M; Chlebowski RT; Robbins JA; Lane DS; Hendrix SL
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2003 Mar; 95(6):429-36. PubMed ID: 12644536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effect of recall rate on earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch performance indicators.
    Otten JD; Karssemeijer N; Hendriks JH; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; Verbeek AL; de Koning HJ; Holland R
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2005 May; 97(10):748-54. PubMed ID: 15900044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Screening mammography in community practice: positive predictive value of abnormal findings and yield of follow-up diagnostic procedures.
    Brown ML; Houn F; Sickles EA; Kessler LG
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Dec; 165(6):1373-7. PubMed ID: 7484568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Observations on mammographic screening and false-positive mammograms.
    Kopans DB; Swann CA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1988 Apr; 150(4):785-6. PubMed ID: 3258089
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: report on the first 4 years of mammography provided to medically underserved women.
    May DS; Lee NC; Nadel MR; Henson RM; Miller DS
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Jan; 170(1):97-104. PubMed ID: 9423608
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Breast cancer screening--the European experience.
    Perry NM
    Int J Fertil Womens Med; 2004; 49(5):228-30. PubMed ID: 15633481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Meta-analyses of the effect of false-positive mammograms on generic and specific psychosocial outcomes.
    Salz T; Richman AR; Brewer NT
    Psychooncology; 2010 Oct; 19(10):1026-34. PubMed ID: 20882572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Mammogram confusion. Questions about breast cancer screening continue.
    Mayo Clin Womens Healthsource; 2011 Mar; 15(3):1-2. PubMed ID: 21301402
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Mammogram rates steady, even with new guidelines.
    Harv Health Lett; 2013 Jul; 38(9):8. PubMed ID: 24409544
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Point: The New England Journal of Medicine article suggesting overdiagnosis from mammography screening is scientifically incorrect and should be withdrawn.
    Kopans DB
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2013 May; 10(5):317-9; discussion 323. PubMed ID: 23542028
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparing the performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK.
    Smith-Bindman R; Ballard-Barbash R; Miglioretti DL; Patnick J; Kerlikowske K
    J Med Screen; 2005; 12(1):50-4. PubMed ID: 15814020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Re: Decreasing women's anxieties after abnormal mammograms: a controlled trial.
    Kopans DB
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2004 Aug; 96(15):1186-7; author reply 1187. PubMed ID: 15292393
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Mammography screening: presentation of scientific evidence as a basis for communication with women].
    Mühlhauser I; Höldke B
    Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich; 2000 Oct; 94(9):721-31. PubMed ID: 11127779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy.
    Smith-Bindman R; Chu P; Miglioretti DL; Quale C; Rosenberg RD; Cutter G; Geller B; Bacchetti P; Sickles EA; Kerlikowske K
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2005 Mar; 97(5):358-67. PubMed ID: 15741572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Breast cancer: when and how often to get screened. How do you make sense of conflicting mammography guidelines?
    Harv Womens Health Watch; 2013 Oct; 21(2):3. PubMed ID: 24432454
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Evidence-based target recall rates for screening mammography.
    Schell MJ; Yankaskas BC; Ballard-Barbash R; Qaqish BF; Barlow WE; Rosenberg RD; Smith-Bindman R
    Radiology; 2007 Jun; 243(3):681-9. PubMed ID: 17517927
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Can computer-aided detection with double reading of screening mammograms help decrease the false-negative rate? Initial experience.
    Destounis SV; DiNitto P; Logan-Young W; Bonaccio E; Zuley ML; Willison KM
    Radiology; 2004 Aug; 232(2):578-84. PubMed ID: 15229350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. False positive mammograms and detection controlled estimation.
    Kleit AN; Ruiz JF
    Health Serv Res; 2003 Aug; 38(4):1207-28. PubMed ID: 12968824
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.