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 *

93 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17937536)

  • 1. Factors affecting short-term bone density precision assessment and the effect on patient monitoring.
    Leslie WD
    J Bone Miner Res; 2008 Feb; 23(2):199-204. PubMed ID: 17937536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The importance of spectrum bias on bone density monitoring in clinical practice.
    Leslie WD;
    Bone; 2006 Aug; 39(2):361-8. PubMed ID: 16537116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Minimum sample size requirements for bone density precision assessment produce inconsistency in clinical monitoring.
    Leslie WD; Moayyeri A;
    Osteoporos Int; 2006; 17(11):1673-80. PubMed ID: 16900302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Long-term precision of DXA scanning assessed over seven years in forty postmenopausal women.
    Patel R; Blake GM; Rymer J; Fogelman I
    Osteoporos Int; 2000; 11(1):68-75. PubMed ID: 10663361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Sources of variability in bone mineral density measurements: implications for study design and analysis of bone loss.
    Nguyen TV; Sambrook PN; Eisman JA
    J Bone Miner Res; 1997 Jan; 12(1):124-35. PubMed ID: 9240735
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Some physical and clinical factors influencing the measurement of precision error, least significant change, and bone mineral density in dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.
    Frimeth J; Galiano E; Webster D
    J Clin Densitom; 2010; 13(1):29-35. PubMed ID: 19932980
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Number of osteoporotic sites and fracture risk assessment: a cohort study from the Manitoba Bone Density Program.
    Leslie WD; Tsang JF; Caetano PA; Lix LM;
    J Bone Miner Res; 2007 Mar; 22(3):476-83. PubMed ID: 17144788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Is a fixed value for the least significant change appropriate?
    Nelson L; Gulenchyn KY; Atthey M; Webber CE
    J Clin Densitom; 2010; 13(1):18-23. PubMed ID: 20171565
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Direct Comparison of the Precision of the New Hologic Horizon Model With the Old Discovery Model.
    Whittaker LG; McNamara EA; Vath S; Shaw E; Malabanan AO; Parker RA; Rosen HN
    J Clin Densitom; 2018; 21(4):524-528. PubMed ID: 29254605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. In vivo short-term precision of hip structure analysis variables in comparison with bone mineral density using paired dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans from multi-center clinical trials.
    Khoo BC; Beck TJ; Qiao QH; Parakh P; Semanick L; Prince RL; Singer KP; Price RI
    Bone; 2005 Jul; 37(1):112-21. PubMed ID: 15869917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Estimating Lumbar Spine Least Significant Change for Fewer than Four Vertebrae: The Manitoba BMD Registry.
    Rosen H; Szalat A; Leslie WD
    J Clin Densitom; 2024; 27(2):101483. PubMed ID: 38479135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Dual X-ray absorptiometry: clinical evaluation of a new cone-beam system.
    Blake GM; Knapp KM; Fogelman I
    Calcif Tissue Int; 2005 Feb; 76(2):113-20. PubMed ID: 15645160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Heteroscedastic regression analysis of factors affecting BMD monitoring.
    Sadatsafavi M; Moayyeri A; Wang L; Leslie WD;
    J Bone Miner Res; 2008 Nov; 23(11):1842-9. PubMed ID: 18925862
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A comparison of the longitudinal changes in quantitative ultrasound with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry: the four-year effects of hormone replacement therapy.
    Sahota O; San P; Cawte SA; Pearson D; Hosking DJ
    Osteoporos Int; 2000; 11(1):52-8. PubMed ID: 10663359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Sample size requirements for bone density precision assessments and effect on patient categorization: a Monte Carlo simulation study.
    Moayyeri A; Sadatsafavi M; Leslie WD;
    Bone; 2007 Oct; 41(4):679-84. PubMed ID: 17706478
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Diagnostic agreement at the total hip using different DXA systems and the NHANES III database.
    Kiebzak GM; Binkley N; Lewiecki EM; Miller PD
    J Clin Densitom; 2007; 10(2):132-7. PubMed ID: 17416539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Rate of bone density change does not enhance fracture prediction in routine clinical practice.
    Leslie WD; Morin SN; Lix LM;
    J Clin Endocrinol Metab; 2012 Apr; 97(4):1211-8. PubMed ID: 22278427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Long-term changes in bone mineral density in kidney transplant recipients.
    Naylor KL; Garg AX; Hodsman AB; Rush DN; Leslie WD
    Transplantation; 2014 Dec; 98(12):1279-85. PubMed ID: 25050472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Does the precision of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry for bone mineral density differ by sex?
    Krueger D; Vallarta-Ast N; Libber J; Gangnon R; Binkley N
    J Clin Densitom; 2014; 17(4):505-9. PubMed ID: 24169083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Errors in Patient Positioning for Bone Mineral Density Assessment by Dual X-Ray Absorptiometry: Effect of Technologist Retraining.
    Promma S; Sritara C; Wipuchwongsakorn S; Chuamsaamarkkee K; Utamakul C; Chamroonrat W; Kositwattanarerk A; Anongpornjossakul Y; Thamnirat K; Ongphiphadhanakul B
    J Clin Densitom; 2018; 21(2):252-259. PubMed ID: 28802981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.