253 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18445697)
1. Reducing the effects of lead-time bias, length bias and over-detection in evaluating screening mammography: a censored bivariate data approach.
Mahnken JD; Chan W; Freeman DH; Freeman JL
Stat Methods Med Res; 2008 Dec; 17(6):643-63. PubMed ID: 18445697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Population estimates of survival in women with screen-detected and symptomatic breast cancer taking account of lead time and length bias.
Lawrence G; Wallis M; Allgood P; Nagtegaal ID; Warwick J; Cafferty FH; Houssami N; Kearins O; Tappenden N; O'Sullivan E; Duffy SW
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2009 Jul; 116(1):179-85. PubMed ID: 18622697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Effect of length biased sampling of unobserved sojourn times on the survival distribution when disease is screen detected.
Kafadar K; Prorok PC
Stat Med; 2009 Jul; 28(16):2116-46. PubMed ID: 19424959
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Estimating lead time and sensitivity in a screening program without estimating the incidence in the screened group.
Straatman H; Peer PG; Verbeek AL
Biometrics; 1997 Mar; 53(1):217-29. PubMed ID: 9147591
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Modeling the impact of treatment and screening on U.S. breast cancer mortality: a Bayesian approach.
Berry DA; Inoue L; Shen Y; Venier J; Cohen D; Bondy M; Theriault R; Munsell MF
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 2006; (36):30-6. PubMed ID: 17032892
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Evaluating the age to begin periodic breast cancer screening using data from a few regularly scheduled screenings.
Baker SG
Biometrics; 1998 Dec; 54(4):1569-78. PubMed ID: 9883553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Alternative definitions of comparable case groups and estimates of lead time and benefit time in randomized cancer screening trials.
Kafadar K; Prorok PC
Stat Med; 2003 Jan; 22(1):83-111. PubMed ID: 12486753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Modeling the dissemination of mammography in the United States.
Cronin KA; Yu B; Krapcho M; Miglioretti DL; Fay MP; Izmirlian G; Ballard-Barbash R; Geller BM; Feuer EJ
Cancer Causes Control; 2005 Aug; 16(6):701-12. PubMed ID: 16049809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The effect of service screening on breast cancer mortality rates.
Cox B
Eur J Cancer Prev; 2008 Aug; 17(4):306-11. PubMed ID: 18562953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Mammography screening rates decline: a person-time approach to evaluation.
Feldstein AC; Vogt TM; Aickin M; Hu WR
Prev Med; 2006 Sep; 43(3):178-82. PubMed ID: 16675004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The University of Rochester model of breast cancer detection and survival.
Hanin LG; Miller A; Zorin AV; Yakovlev AY
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 2006; (36):66-78. PubMed ID: 17032896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Screening mammography in women 40 to 49 years of age: yes.
Kopans DB
Important Adv Oncol; 1995; ():231-41. PubMed ID: 7672809
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. [The yield of breast cancer screening: the importance of observational data and the problems of bias].
Giard RW
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2004 Feb; 148(8):352-5. PubMed ID: 15032087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of the impact of breast cancer screening in South Australia.
Tallis GM; O'Neill TJ
Intern Med J; 2009 Mar; 39(3):174-8. PubMed ID: 19383066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [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]
16. Robust variance estimation for the case-cohort design.
Barlow WE
Biometrics; 1994 Dec; 50(4):1064-72. PubMed ID: 7786988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A natural history model of stage progression applied to breast cancer.
Plevritis SK; Salzman P; Sigal BM; Glynn PW
Stat Med; 2007 Feb; 26(3):581-95. PubMed ID: 16598706
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of cancer registry and clinical data as predictors for breast cancer survival.
Seppänen J; Heinävaara S; Holli K; Hakulinen T
Cancer Causes Control; 2008 Dec; 19(10):1299-304. PubMed ID: 18752035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Impact of mammography on U.S. breast cancer mortality, 1975-2000: are intermediate outcome measures informative?
Habbema JD; Tan SY; Cronin KA
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 2006; (36):105-11. PubMed ID: 17032900
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
