212 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23257157)
1. Conflicting clinical guidelines.
Schmidt C
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2013 Jan; 105(1):2-3. PubMed ID: 23257157
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. How do clinical practice guidelines go awry?
Dachs R; Darby-Stewart A; Graber MA
Am Fam Physician; 2012 Sep; 86(6):514-6. PubMed ID: 23062042
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. NCCN endorses PSA testing in absence of better alternatives.
Reinke T
Manag Care; 2014 May; 23(5):39-41. PubMed ID: 25019148
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. The Society of Urologic Oncology's reply to the US Preventative Services Task Force's recommendation on PSA testing.
Messing EM; Albertsen P; Andriole GL; Carroll PR; Klein EA
Urol Oncol; 2012; 30(1):117-9. PubMed ID: 22243597
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Improving the transparency and trustworthiness of subspecialty-based clinical practice guidelines.
Talwalkar JA
Mayo Clin Proc; 2014 Jan; 89(1):5-7. PubMed ID: 24388016
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Preventive Services Task Force recommends against PSA screening after age 75.
Twombly R
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2008 Nov; 100(22):1571-3. PubMed ID: 19001606
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Re: an empirical evaluation of guidelines on prostate-specific antigen velocity in prostate cancer detection.
Loeb S; Metter EJ; Carter HB
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2011 Nov; 103(21):1636-7; author reply 1637. PubMed ID: 21926375
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Measuring the importance of PSA velocity.
Tuma RS
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2011 Mar; 103(6):454-61. PubMed ID: 21393606
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Re: an empirical evaluation of guidelines on prostate-specific antigen velocity in prostate cancer detection.
Vickers AJ
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2011 Nov; 103(21):1635-6. PubMed ID: 21926376
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Language for Actionable Recommendations in Clinical Guidelines: Avoiding Hedging and Equivocation.
Klasco RS; Glinert LH
JAMA; 2017 Feb; 317(6):583-584. PubMed ID: 28196262
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Stratifying risk--the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and prostate-cancer screening.
Schröder FH
N Engl J Med; 2011 Nov; 365(21):1953-5. PubMed ID: 22029756
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Prostate-cancer screening--what the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force left out.
Brett AS; Ablin RJ
N Engl J Med; 2011 Nov; 365(21):1949-51. PubMed ID: 22029759
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Conflict of Interest in Practice Guidelines Panels.
Sox HC
JAMA; 2017 May; 317(17):1739-1740. PubMed ID: 28464160
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Groups aim for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines.
Mitka M
JAMA; 2014 Mar; 311(12):1187-8. PubMed ID: 24668083
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Primary care providers' response to the US Preventive Services Task Force draft recommendations on screening for prostate cancer.
Pollack CE; Noronha G; Green GE; Bhavsar NA; Carter HB
Arch Intern Med; 2012 Apr; 172(8):668-70. PubMed ID: 22529237
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. [Not Available].
Aktuelle Urol; 2014 Nov; 45(6):433. PubMed ID: 25514772
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Controlling conflict of interest--proposals from the Institute of Medicine.
Steinbrook R
N Engl J Med; 2009 May; 360(21):2160-3. PubMed ID: 19403898
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Psychological research and the prostate-cancer screening controversy.
Arkes HR; Gaissmaier W
Psychol Sci; 2012 Jun; 23(6):547-53. PubMed ID: 22555966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. PSA test not recommended by Canadian Task Force.
Tanday S
Lancet Oncol; 2014 Dec; 15(13):e589. PubMed ID: 25499287
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Clinical practice guidelines come to a turning point.
Pines A
Climacteric; 2014 Jun; 17(3):223-4. PubMed ID: 24400895
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
