425 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23299842)
1. Time lag to benefit after screening for breast and colorectal cancer: meta-analysis of survival data from the United States, Sweden, United Kingdom, and Denmark.
Lee SJ; Boscardin WJ; Stijacic-Cenzer I; Conell-Price J; O'Brien S; Walter LC
BMJ; 2013 Jan; 346():e8441. PubMed ID: 23299842
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effect of Time to Diagnostic Testing for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Abnormalities on Screening Efficacy: A Modeling Study.
Rutter CM; Kim JJ; Meester RGS; Sprague BL; Burger EA; Zauber AG; Ergun MA; Campos NG; Doubeni CA; Trentham-Dietz A; Sy S; Alagoz O; Stout N; Lansdorp-Vogelaar I; Corley DA; Tosteson ANA
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2018 Feb; 27(2):158-164. PubMed ID: 29150480
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
Humphrey LL; Helfand M; Chan BK; Woolf SH
Ann Intern Med; 2002 Sep; 137(5 Part 1):347-60. PubMed ID: 12204020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Colorectal cancer mortality: effectiveness of biennial screening for fecal occult blood.
Mandel JS; Church TR; Ederer F; Bond JH
J Natl Cancer Inst; 1999 Mar; 91(5):434-7. PubMed ID: 10070942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Time to benefit for colorectal cancer screening: survival meta-analysis of flexible sigmoidoscopy trials.
Tang V; Boscardin WJ; Stijacic-Cenzer I; Lee SJ
BMJ; 2015 Apr; 350():h1662. PubMed ID: 25881903
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Review in depth and meta-analysis of controlled trials on colorectal cancer screening by faecal occult blood test.
Heresbach D; Manfredi S; D'halluin PN; Bretagne JF; Branger B
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol; 2006 Apr; 18(4):427-33. PubMed ID: 16538116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis to Update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation.
Nelson HD; Fu R; Cantor A; Pappas M; Daeges M; Humphrey L
Ann Intern Med; 2016 Feb; 164(4):244-55. PubMed ID: 26756588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Mammography screening: a new estimate of number needed to screen to prevent one breast cancer death.
Hendrick RE; Helvie MA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Mar; 198(3):723-8. PubMed ID: 22358016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Meta-analysis of breast cancer mortality benefit and overdiagnosis adjusted for adherence: improving information on the effects of attending screening mammography.
Jacklyn G; Glasziou P; Macaskill P; Barratt A
Br J Cancer; 2016 May; 114(11):1269-76. PubMed ID: 27124337
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Effectiveness and economic impact of screening for colorectal cancer by mass fecal occult blood testing.
Helm JF; Russo MW; Biddle AK; Simpson KN; Ransohoff DF; Sandler RS
Am J Gastroenterol; 2000 Nov; 95(11):3250-8. PubMed ID: 11095350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The importance of age in screening for cancer.
Law MR; Morris JK; Wald NJ
J Med Screen; 1999; 6(1):16-20. PubMed ID: 10321365
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.
Myers ER; Moorman P; Gierisch JM; Havrilesky LJ; Grimm LJ; Ghate S; Davidson B; Mongtomery RC; Crowley MJ; McCrory DC; Kendrick A; Sanders GD
JAMA; 2015 Oct; 314(15):1615-34. PubMed ID: 26501537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Adherence: Effect of Low Body Mass Index in Women.
Charkhchi P; Schabath MB; Carlos RC
J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2020 Jul; 29(7):996-1006. PubMed ID: 31928405
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Screening mammography for women aged 40 to 49 years at average risk for breast cancer: an evidence-based analysis.
Medical Advisory Secretariat
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser; 2007; 7(1):1-32. PubMed ID: 23074501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, hemoccult.
Towler BP; Irwig L; Glasziou P; Weller D; Kewenter J
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2000; (2):CD001216. PubMed ID: 10796760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Get screened: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to increase mammography and colorectal cancer screening in a large, safety net practice.
Fiscella K; Yosha A; Hendren SK; Humiston S; Winters P; Ford P; Loader S; Specht R; Pope S; Adris A; Marcus S
BMC Health Serv Res; 2010 Sep; 10():280. PubMed ID: 20863395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Overview of the epidemiology methods and applications: strengths and limitations of observational study designs.
Colditz GA
Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr; 2010; 50 Suppl 1(s1):10-2. PubMed ID: 21132580
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Advances in colorectal cancer screening.
Vu HT; Burke CA
Curr Gastroenterol Rep; 2009 Oct; 11(5):406-12. PubMed ID: 19765369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.
Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening
Lancet; 2012 Nov; 380(9855):1778-86. PubMed ID: 23117178
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparing risks and benefits of colorectal cancer screening in elderly patients.
Ko CW; Sonnenberg A
Gastroenterology; 2005 Oct; 129(4):1163-70. PubMed ID: 16230070
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
