174 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18504245)
1. Correcting for lead time and length bias in estimating the effect of screen detection on cancer survival.
Duffy SW; Nagtegaal ID; Wallis M; Cafferty FH; Houssami N; Warwick J; Allgood PC; Kearins O; Tappenden N; O'Sullivan E; Lawrence G
Am J Epidemiol; 2008 Jul; 168(1):98-104. PubMed ID: 18504245
[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. Are international differences in breast cancer survival between Australia and the UK present amongst both screen-detected women and non-screen-detected women? survival estimates for women diagnosed in West Midlands and New South Wales 1997-2006.
Woods LM; Rachet B; O'Connell DL; Lawrence G; Coleman MP
Int J Cancer; 2016 May; 138(10):2404-14. PubMed ID: 26756306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Continuous tumour growth models, lead time estimation and length bias in breast cancer screening studies.
Abrahamsson L; Isheden G; Czene K; Humphreys K
Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 Feb; 29(2):374-395. PubMed ID: 30854935
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Screening histories of invasive breast cancers diagnosed 1989-2006 in the West Midlands, UK: variation with time and impact on 10-year survival.
Lawrence G; O'Sullivan E; Kearins O; Tappenden N; Martin K; Wallis M
J Med Screen; 2009; 16(4):186-92. PubMed ID: 20054093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Impact of deprivation on breast cancer survival among women eligible for mammographic screening in the West Midlands (UK) and New South Wales (Australia): Women diagnosed 1997-2006.
Woods LM; Rachet B; O'Connell D; Lawrence G; Coleman MP
Int J Cancer; 2016 May; 138(10):2396-403. PubMed ID: 26756181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. Breast cancer screening comes full circle.
Baum M
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2004 Oct; 96(20):1490-1. PubMed ID: 15494593
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. The SPECTRUM population model of the impact of screening and treatment on U.S. breast cancer trends from 1975 to 2000: principles and practice of the model methods.
Mandelblatt J; Schechter CB; Lawrence W; Yi B; Cullen J
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 2006; (36):47-55. PubMed ID: 17032894
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Quantification of length-bias in screening trials with covariate-dependent test sensitivity.
Heltshe SL; Kafadar K; Prorok PC
Biom J; 2015 Sep; 57(5):777-96. PubMed ID: 25980962
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Bias in breast cancer research in the screening era.
Cox B; Sneyd MJ
Breast; 2013 Dec; 22(6):1041-5. PubMed ID: 23988397
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Efficacy of mass screening for breast cancer; reduced mortality nationally and internationally].
de Koning HJ; Boer R; van der Maas PJ; van Ineveld BM; Collette HJ; Hendriks JH
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1990 Nov; 134(46):2240-5. PubMed ID: 2255351
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Estimating mean sojourn time and screening test sensitivity in breast cancer mammography screening: new results.
Weedon-Fekjaer H; Vatten LJ; Aalen OO; Lindqvist B; Tretli S
J Med Screen; 2005; 12(4):172-8. PubMed ID: 16417693
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Role of detection method in predicting breast cancer survival: analysis of randomized screening trials.
Shen Y; Yang Y; Inoue LY; Munsell MF; Miller AB; Berry DA
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2005 Aug; 97(16):1195-203. PubMed ID: 16106024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. On informative detection bias in screening studies.
Sjölander A; Humphreys K; Palmgren J
Stat Med; 2008 Jun; 27(14):2635-50. PubMed ID: 17918781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A reality check for overdiagnosis estimates associated with breast cancer screening.
Etzioni R; Xia J; Hubbard R; Weiss NS; Gulati R
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2014 Dec; 106(12):. PubMed ID: 25362701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Estimating life expectancy and related probabilities in screen-detected breast cancer patients with restricted follow-up information.
Straatman H; Verbeek AL; Peer PG; Borm G
Stat Med; 2004 Feb; 23(3):431-48. PubMed ID: 14748037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The West Midlands breast cancer screening status algorithm - methodology and use as an audit tool.
Lawrence G; Kearins O; O'Sullivan E; Tappenden N; Wallis M; Walton J
J Med Screen; 2005; 12(4):179-84. PubMed ID: 16417694
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
