111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16809428)
1. Re: "Applying recursive partitioning to a prospective study of factors associated with adherence to mammography screening guidelines".
Radespiel-Tröger M; Hothorn T; Pfahlberg AB; Gefeller O
Am J Epidemiol; 2006 Aug; 164(4):400-1; author reply 401-2. PubMed ID: 16809428
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Influence of physician and patient characteristics on adherence to breast cancer screening recommendations.
Abdel-Malek N; Chiarelli AM; Sloan M; Stewart DE; Mai V; Howlett RI
Eur J Cancer Prev; 2008 Feb; 17(1):48-53. PubMed ID: 18090910
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Why don't family physicians follow clinical practice guidelines for cancer screening? Family Physician Study Group, Sociobehavioral Cancer Research Network, National Cancer Institute of Canada.
Tudiver F; Herbert C; Goel V
CMAJ; 1998 Oct; 159(7):797-8. PubMed ID: 9805027
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Evolution of breast cancer screening in countries with intermediate and increasing incidence of breast cancer.
Wu GH; Chen LS; Chang KJ; Hou MF; Chen SC; Liu TJ; Huang CS; Hsu GC; Yu CC; Jeng LL; Chen ST; Chou YH; Wu CY; Shin-Lan K; Chen TH;
J Med Screen; 2006; 13 Suppl 1():S23-7. PubMed ID: 17227638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [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]
6. Cross-sectional versus prospective predictors of screening mammography.
Bastani R; Maxwell AE; Bradford C
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 1996 Oct; 5(10):845-8. PubMed ID: 8896896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. False-positive mammographic screening: factors influencing re-attendance over a decade of screening.
Fitzpatrick P; Fleming P; O'Neill S; Kiernan D; Mooney T
J Med Screen; 2011; 18(1):30-3. PubMed ID: 21536814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Gøtzsche's quixotic antiscreening campaign: nonscientific and contrary to Cochrane principles.
Dean PB
J Am Coll Radiol; 2004 Jan; 1(1):3-7. PubMed ID: 17411510
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. [Revised practice guideline 'Screening and diagnosis of breast cancer'].
Zonderland HM; Tuut MK; den Heeten GJ; Asperen CJ; de Bock GH; Rutqers EJ; Westenend PJ; Smit GM; Benraadt J
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2008 Oct; 152(43):2336-9. PubMed ID: 19024064
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Applying recursive partitioning to a prospective study of factors associated with adherence to mammography screening guidelines.
Calvocoressi L; Stolar M; Kasl SV; Claus EB; Jones BA
Am J Epidemiol; 2005 Dec; 162(12):1215-24. PubMed ID: 16221800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Mammography screening in women 40 to 49 years old.
Léger MM; McNellis R;
JAAPA; 2007 Nov; 20(11):16, 18. PubMed ID: 18035758
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Study design and statistics in the epidemiology of breast cancer.
Maraqa L; Lansdown M
Br J Cancer; 2006 Nov; 95(9):1301; author reply 1302-3. PubMed ID: 17024126
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Screening for breast cancer.
Garr DR
Am Fam Physician; 2000 Aug; 62(3):500-1. PubMed ID: 10950208
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Tracking cancer screening progress.
Hanson K; Bondurant E
NCSL Legisbrief; 2009 Mar; 17(17):1-2. PubMed ID: 19301481
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Trends in mammography and clinical breast examination: a population-based study.
Chagpar AB; McMasters KM
J Surg Res; 2007 Jun; 140(2):214-9. PubMed ID: 17418862
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Summary of the practice guideline 'Diagnosis of breast cancer' (second revision) from the Dutch College of General Practitioners].
Wiersma T; de Bock GH; Corsten MC; Scheele ME; Goudswaard AN
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2009; 153():A154. PubMed ID: 19818178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Screening mammography re-evaluated.
Miller AB; Baines CJ; To T; Wall C
Lancet; 2000 Feb; 355(9205):747; author reply 752. PubMed ID: 10703818
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Results of the Two-County trial of mammography screening are not compatible with contemporaneous official Swedish breast cancer statistics.
Zahl PH; Gøtzsche PC; Andersen JM; Maehlen J
Dan Med Bull; 2006 Nov; 53(4):438-40. PubMed ID: 17150148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Whatever happened to clinical breast examinations?
Caplan LS
Am J Prev Med; 2004 Jul; 27(1):85. PubMed ID: 15212782
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
