177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22919037)
1. Breast density legislation and opportunities for patient-centered outcomes research.
Lee CI; Bassett LW; Lehman CD
Radiology; 2012 Sep; 264(3):632-6. PubMed ID: 22919037
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Breast density legislation.
Hall FM
Radiology; 2013 Mar; 266(3):997-8. PubMed ID: 23431234
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Response.
Lee CI; Bassett LW; Lehman CD
Radiology; 2013 Mar; 266(3):999-1000. PubMed ID: 23550288
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Response.
Hooley RJ; Greenberg K; Stackhouse RM; Geisel J; Butler R; Philpotts LE
Radiology; 2013 Mar; 266(3):998-9. PubMed ID: 23550287
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Evidence-based advocacy rather than emotion in defense of screening mammography.
Patti J; Lee C
Radiology; 2010 Oct; 257(1):295-6; author reply 296-7. PubMed ID: 20851948
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: the unbalanced view.
Evans WP; Lee CH; Monsees BS; Monticciolo DL; Rebner M
Radiology; 2010 Oct; 257(1):297; author reply 297-8. PubMed ID: 20851949
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. More mammography muddle: emotions, politics, science, costs, and polarization.
Berlin L; Hall FM
Radiology; 2010 May; 255(2):311-6. PubMed ID: 20413746
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Screening mammography in women 40 to 49 years of age.
Lisby MD
Am Fam Physician; 2004 Nov; 70(9):1750-2. PubMed ID: 15554494
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. [Breast cancer screening lacks effectiveness].
Merkelbach JW
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2002 Jan; 146(3):139-40. PubMed ID: 11826675
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines are not supported by the scientific evidence.
Kopans DB
Radiology; 2010 Oct; 257(1):294-5; author reply 295. PubMed ID: 20851947
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. What's a girl to do?
Carroll-Johnson RM
Oncol Nurs Forum; 2002 Apr; 29(3):445. PubMed ID: 11979280
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Wise words from Drs Berlin and Hall.
Baines CJ
Radiology; 2010 Oct; 257(1):298; author reply 298. PubMed ID: 20851950
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Dense breasts: a review of reporting legislation and available supplemental screening options.
Ho JM; Jafferjee N; Covarrubias GM; Ghesani M; Handler B
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Aug; 203(2):449-56. PubMed ID: 25055284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Mammographers' ranks shrink as demand for breast images grows.
Washam C
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2005 Jun; 97(11):792-3. PubMed ID: 15928296
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The controversy of mammography screening.
Kopans DB
Adm Radiol; 1995 Jan; 14(1):13-24. PubMed ID: 10141106
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. The politics of mammography.
McLelland R; Pisano ED
Radiol Clin North Am; 1992 Jan; 30(1):235-41. PubMed ID: 1732930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Recent controversies in mammography screening for breast cancer.
McTiernan A
Medscape Womens Health; 2002; 7(2):3. PubMed ID: 12142859
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Screening mammography is back.
Grimaldi PL
Nurs Manage; 1991 Apr; 22(4):20, 22. PubMed ID: 2011330
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Breast Imaging: The Face of Imaging 3.0.
Mayo RC; Parikh JR
J Am Coll Radiol; 2016 Aug; 13(8):1003-7. PubMed ID: 27162041
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The impact of alternative practices on the cost and quality of mammographic screening in the United States.
Burnside E; Belkora J; Esserman L
Clin Breast Cancer; 2001 Jul; 2(2):145-52. PubMed ID: 11899786
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
