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.
207 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24658691)
1. Aggregate cost of mammography screening in the United States: comparison of current practice and advocated guidelines. O'Donoghue C; Eklund M; Ozanne EM; Esserman LJ Ann Intern Med; 2014 Feb; 160(3):145. PubMed ID: 24658691 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Personalizing mammography by breast density and other risk factors for breast cancer: analysis of health benefits and cost-effectiveness. Schousboe JT; Kerlikowske K; Loh A; Cummings SR Ann Intern Med; 2011 Jul; 155(1):10-20. PubMed ID: 21727289 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. United States Preventive Services Task Force screening mammography recommendations: science ignored. Hendrick RE; Helvie MA AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Feb; 196(2):W112-6. PubMed ID: 21257850 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Collaborative Modeling to Compare Different Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: A Decision Analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Trentham-Dietz A; Chapman CH; Jayasekera J; Lowry KP; Heckman-Stoddard BM; Hampton JM; Caswell-Jin JL; Gangnon RE; Lu Y; Huang H; Stein S; Sun L; Gil Quessep EJ; Yang Y; Lu Y; Song J; Muñoz DF; Li Y; Kurian AW; Kerlikowske K; O'Meara ES; Sprague BL; Tosteson ANA; Feuer EJ; Berry D; Plevritis SK; Huang X; de Koning HJ; van Ravesteyn NT; Lee SJ; Alagoz O; Schechter CB; Stout NK; Miglioretti DL; Mandelblatt JS JAMA; 2024 Jun; 331(22):1947-1960. PubMed ID: 38687505 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Breast MRI screening for average-risk women: A monte carlo simulation cost-benefit analysis. Mango VL; Goel A; Mema E; Kwak E; Ha R J Magn Reson Imaging; 2019 Jun; 49(7):e216-e221. PubMed ID: 30632645 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Incorporating Baseline Breast Density When Screening Women at Average Risk for Breast Cancer : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Shih YT; Dong W; Xu Y; Etzioni R; Shen Y Ann Intern Med; 2021 May; 174(5):602-612. PubMed ID: 33556275 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. US Preventive Services Task Force Ann Intern Med; 2009 Nov; 151(10):716-26, W-236. PubMed ID: 19920272 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Screening Mammography in a Public Hospital Serving Predominantly African-American Women: A Stage-Survival-Cost Model. Farley C; Friedman D; Habtes I; Raskind-Hood C; Adams EK; Becker ER; D'Orsi C; Gundry K; Birdsong G; Gabram-Mendola S Womens Health Issues; 2015; 25(4):322-30. PubMed ID: 25910513 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Re-examining current breast cancer screening: An analysis of the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines for breast cancer screening. Beard C; Beard V Women Health; 2016; 56(3):281-95. PubMed ID: 26362522 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Screening Mammography Use Among Older Women Before and After the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations. Chang CH; Bynum JP; Onega T; Colla CH; Lurie JD; Tosteson AN J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2016 Oct; 25(10):1030-1037. PubMed ID: 27427790 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Tailoring Breast Cancer Screening Intervals by Breast Density and Risk for Women Aged 50 Years or Older: Collaborative Modeling of Screening Outcomes. Trentham-Dietz A; Kerlikowske K; Stout NK; Miglioretti DL; Schechter CB; Ergun MA; van den Broek JJ; Alagoz O; Sprague BL; van Ravesteyn NT; Near AM; Gangnon RE; Hampton JM; Chandler Y; de Koning HJ; Mandelblatt JS; Tosteson AN; Ann Intern Med; 2016 Nov; 165(10):700-712. PubMed ID: 27548583 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The cost-effectiveness of mammographic screening strategies. Lindfors KK; Rosenquist CJ JAMA; 1995 Sep; 274(11):881-4. PubMed ID: 7674501 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography. Stout NK; Lee SJ; Schechter CB; Kerlikowske K; Alagoz O; Berry D; Buist DS; Cevik M; Chisholm G; de Koning HJ; Huang H; Hubbard RA; Miglioretti DL; Munsell MF; Trentham-Dietz A; van Ravesteyn NT; Tosteson AN; Mandelblatt JS J Natl Cancer Inst; 2014 Jun; 106(6):dju092. PubMed ID: 24872543 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography screening before the age of 50 in The Netherlands. Sankatsing VD; Heijnsdijk EA; van Luijt PA; van Ravesteyn NT; Fracheboud J; de Koning HJ Int J Cancer; 2015 Oct; 137(8):1990-9. PubMed ID: 25895135 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Identifying Equitable Screening Mammography Strategies for Black Women in the United States Using Simulation Modeling. Chapman CH; Schechter CB; Cadham CJ; Trentham-Dietz A; Gangnon RE; Jagsi R; Mandelblatt JS Ann Intern Med; 2021 Dec; 174(12):1637-1646. PubMed ID: 34662151 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Tosteson AN; Stout NK; Fryback DG; Acharyya S; Herman BA; Hannah LG; Pisano ED; Ann Intern Med; 2008 Jan; 148(1):1-10. PubMed ID: 18166758 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Updated Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines for Average-Risk Women. Tina Shih YC; Dong W; Xu Y; Shen Y Value Health; 2019 Feb; 22(2):185-193. PubMed ID: 30711063 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]