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.
197 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25031310)
1. Higher mammography screening costs without appreciable clinical benefit: the case of digital mammography. Kerlikowske K; Hubbard R; Tosteson AN J Natl Cancer Inst; 2014 Aug; 106(8):. PubMed ID: 25031310 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Computer-aided detection in mammography: downstream effect on diagnostic testing, ductal carcinoma in situ treatment, and costs. Fenton JJ; Lee CI; Xing G; Baldwin LM; Elmore JG JAMA Intern Med; 2014 Dec; 174(12):2032-4. PubMed ID: 25347134 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
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. Budget impact analysis of switching to digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: a discrete event simulation model. Comas M; Arrospide A; Mar J; Sala M; Vilaprinyó E; Hernández C; Cots F; Martínez J; Castells X PLoS One; 2014; 9(5):e97459. PubMed ID: 24832200 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evolution of breast cancer screening in the Medicare population: clinical and economic implications. Killelea BK; Long JB; Chagpar AB; Ma X; Wang R; Ross JS; Gross CP J Natl Cancer Inst; 2014 Aug; 106(8):. PubMed ID: 25031307 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Screening Mammography for Average-Risk Women: The Controversy and NCCN's Position. Helvie MA; Bevers TB J Natl Compr Canc Netw; 2018 Nov; 16(11):1398-1404. PubMed ID: 30442738 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Digital mammography: clinical image evaluation. Bassett LW; Hoyt AC; Oshiro T Radiol Clin North Am; 2010 Sep; 48(5):903-15. PubMed ID: 20868893 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Point/Counterpoint. Film mammography for breast cancer screening in younger women is no longer appropriate because of the demonstrated superiority of digital mammography for this age group. Yaffe MJ; Barnes GT; Orton CG Med Phys; 2006 Nov; 33(11):3979-82. PubMed ID: 17153375 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Digital mammography imaging: breast tomosynthesis and advanced applications. Helvie MA Radiol Clin North Am; 2010 Sep; 48(5):917-29. PubMed ID: 20868894 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. To screen or not to screen women in their 40s for breast cancer: is personalized risk-based screening the answer? Mandelblatt JS; Stout N; Trentham-Dietz A Ann Intern Med; 2011 Jul; 155(1):58-60. PubMed ID: 21727294 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Cost-effectiveness analysis of mammography screening in Hong Kong Chinese using state-transition Markov modelling. Wong IO; Kuntz KM; Cowling BJ; Lam CL; Leung GM Hong Kong Med J; 2010 Jun; 16 Suppl 3():38-41. PubMed ID: 20601733 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Cost-effectiveness of mammography, MRI, and ultrasonography for breast cancer screening. Feig S Radiol Clin North Am; 2010 Sep; 48(5):879-91. PubMed ID: 20868891 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Use of digital breast tomosynthesis with mammography for breast cancer screening or diagnosis. ; ; Technol Eval Cent Assess Program Exec Summ; 2014 Jan; 28(6):1-6. PubMed ID: 24730082 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Mammography screening for older women with and without cognitive impairment. Messecar DC J Gerontol Nurs; 2000 Apr; 26(4):14-24; quiz 52-3. PubMed ID: 11272962 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Point/counterpoint. Ultrasonography is soon likely to become a viable alternative to x-ray mammography for breast cancer screening. Glide-Hurst CK; Maidment AD; Orton CG Med Phys; 2010 Sep; 37(9):4526-9. PubMed ID: 20964169 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]