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 *

131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19345895)

  • 41. Do invitations for cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable informed choice? A cross-sectional study of invitations for publicly funded cervical screening.
    Kolthoff SK; Hestbech MS; Jørgensen KJ; Brodersen J
    J R Soc Med; 2016 Jul; 109(7):274-81. PubMed ID: 27118696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. [Breast cancer screening in Dakar: knowledge and practice of breast self examination among a female population in Senegal].
    Gueye SM; Bawa KD; Ba MG; Mendes V; Toure CT; Moreau JC
    Rev Med Brux; 2009; 30(2):77-82. PubMed ID: 19517903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. [The mamma method--health information program for diagnosing breast cancer].
    Gästrin G
    Lakartidningen; 1980 Feb; 77(6):449-51. PubMed ID: 7366310
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Breast cancer screening participation among Turks and Moroccans in the Netherlands: exploring reasons for nonattendance.
    Hartman E; van den Muijsenbergh ME; Haneveld RW
    Eur J Cancer Prev; 2009 Sep; 18(5):349-53. PubMed ID: 19581808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Inequalities in breast cancer stage at diagnosis in the Trent region, and implications for the NHS Breast Screening Programme.
    Cuthbertson SA; Goyder EC; Poole J
    J Public Health (Oxf); 2009 Sep; 31(3):398-405. PubMed ID: 19423544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of underserved women in the rural South toward breast cancer prevention and detection.
    Avis-Williams A; Khoury A; Lisovicz N; Graham-Kresge S
    Fam Community Health; 2009; 32(3):238-46. PubMed ID: 19525705
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Tailored written invitations for second round breast cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial.
    Meldrum P; Turnbull D; Dobson HM; Colquhoun C; Gilmour WH; McIlwaine GM
    J Med Screen; 1994 Oct; 1(4):245-8. PubMed ID: 8790529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. A 2-year study on cytomegalovirus infection during pregnancy in a French hospital.
    Picone O; Vauloup-Fellous C; Cordier AG; Parent Du Châtelet I; Senat MV; Frydman R; Grangeot-Keros L
    BJOG; 2009 May; 116(6):818-23. PubMed ID: 19432571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. The creation of a database for cancer screening: is the consent of clients required?
    Kotalik JF; Holloway G; Woodbeck H
    Cancer Prev Control; 1999 Apr; 3(2):119-24. PubMed ID: 10474758
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Developing and testing a cost-assessment tool for cancer screening programs.
    Subramanian S; Ekwueme DU; Gardner JG; Trogdon J
    Am J Prev Med; 2009 Sep; 37(3):242-7. PubMed ID: 19666160
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Comparing interval breast cancer rates in Norway and North Carolina: results and challenges.
    Hofvind S; Yankaskas BC; Bulliard JL; Klabunde CN; Fracheboud J
    J Med Screen; 2009; 16(3):131-9. PubMed ID: 19805754
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Evaluating information for women referred for breast screening abnormalities.
    Decker KM; Harrison M
    J Cancer Educ; 2002; 17(1):28-32. PubMed ID: 12000102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Communicating the balance sheet in breast cancer screening.
    Giordano L; Cogo C; Patnick J; Paci E;
    J Med Screen; 2012; 19 Suppl 1():67-71. PubMed ID: 22972812
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Breast cancer risk factors in Korean women: a literature review.
    Lee SM; Park JH; Park HJ
    Int Nurs Rev; 2008 Sep; 55(3):355-9. PubMed ID: 19522954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Differences in endpoints between the Swedish W-E (two county) trial of mammographic screening and the Swedish overview: methodological consequences.
    Holmberg L; Duffy SW; Yen AM; Tabár L; Vitak B; Nyström L; Frisell J
    J Med Screen; 2009; 16(2):73-80. PubMed ID: 19564519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Use of cancer screening services in Greece and associated social factors: results from the nation-wide Hellas Health I survey.
    Dimitrakaki C; Boulamatsis D; Mariolis A; Kontodimopoulos N; Niakas D; Tountas Y
    Eur J Cancer Prev; 2009 Jun; 18(3):248-57. PubMed ID: 19491613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. The role of breast MRI in clinical practice.
    Brennan M; Spillane A; Houssami N
    Aust Fam Physician; 2009 Jul; 38(7):513-9. PubMed ID: 19575070
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. [Important that the invitation to mammography is preceded by an all-round and objective information].
    Töllborn MT; Engström I
    Lakartidningen; 2010 Jan 27-Feb 2; 107(4):201. PubMed ID: 20333982
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Participation in breast cancer screening and its influence on other cancer screening invitations: study in women aged 56 years old in four French departments.
    Poiseuil M; Moutel G; Cosson M; Quertier MC; Duchange N; Darquy S
    Eur J Cancer Prev; 2023 May; 32(3):238-245. PubMed ID: 36779309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Evaluation of the personalized invitation of Czech citizens to screening programs.
    Ngo O; Chloupková R; Ambrožová M; Suchánek Š; Zavoral M; Seifert B; Dvořák V; Daneš J; Skovajsová M; Dušek L; Májek O
    Cas Lek Cesk; 2019; 158(3-4):147-150. PubMed ID: 31416323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.