393 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27814820)
1. Performance Goals for an Adjunct Diagnostic Test to Reduce Unnecessary Biopsies After Screening Mammography: Analysis of Costs, Benefits, and Consequences.
Lee CI; Bensink ME; Berry K; Musa Z; Bodnar C; Dann R; Jarvik JG; Lehman CD; Ramsey SD
J Am Coll Radiol; 2016 Nov; 13(11S):R81-R88. PubMed ID: 27814820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Performance goals for an adjunct diagnostic test to reduce unnecessary biopsies after screening mammography: analysis of costs, benefits, and consequences.
Lee CI; Bensink ME; Berry K; Musa Z; Bodnar C; Dann R; Jarvik JG; Lehman CD; Ramsey SD
J Am Coll Radiol; 2013 Dec; 10(12):924-30. PubMed ID: 24295942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts.
Sprague BL; Stout NK; Schechter C; van Ravesteyn NT; Cevik M; Alagoz O; Lee CI; van den Broek JJ; Miglioretti DL; Mandelblatt JS; de Koning HJ; Kerlikowske K; Lehman CD; Tosteson AN
Ann Intern Med; 2015 Feb; 162(3):157-66. PubMed ID: 25486550
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Diagnostic workup and costs of a single supplemental molecular breast imaging screen of mammographically dense breasts.
Hruska CB; Conners AL; Jones KN; O'Connor MK; Moriarty JP; Boughey JC; Rhodes DJ
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Jun; 204(6):1345-53. PubMed ID: 26001247
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Ultrasound as an Adjunct to Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening: A Health Technology Assessment.
Health Quality Ontario
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser; 2016; 16(15):1-71. PubMed ID: 27468326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Decision analysis for the cost effectiveness of sestamibi scintimammography in minimizing unnecessary biopsies.
Allen MW; Hendi P; Schwimmer J; Bassett L; Gambhir SS
Q J Nucl Med; 2000 Jun; 44(2):168-85. PubMed ID: 10967626
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Cost-effectiveness of annual versus biennial screening mammography for women with high mammographic breast density.
Pataky R; Ismail Z; Coldman AJ; Elwood M; Gelmon K; Hedden L; Hislop G; Kan L; McCoy B; Olivotto IA; Peacock S
J Med Screen; 2014 Dec; 21(4):180-8. PubMed ID: 25186116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Cost-effectiveness of mammography screening for breast cancer in a low socioeconomic group of Iranian women.
Barfar E; Rashidian A; Hosseini H; Nosratnejad S; Barooti E; Zendehdel K
Arch Iran Med; 2014 Apr; 17(4):241-5. PubMed ID: 24724599
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Insights Into Breast Cancer Screening: A Computer Simulation of Two Contemporary Screening Strategies.
Carter KJ; Castro F; Morcos RN
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Mar; 210(3):564-571. PubMed ID: 29323554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The patient burden of screening mammography recall.
Alcusky M; Philpotts L; Bonafede M; Clarke J; Skoufalos A
J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2014 Sep; 23 Suppl 1():S11-9. PubMed ID: 25247382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Magnetic Resonance Imaging as an Adjunct to Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening in Women at Less Than High Risk for Breast Cancer: A Health Technology Assessment.
Health Quality Ontario
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser; 2016; 16(20):1-30. PubMed ID: 27990198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Adjunct ultrasonography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk: a systematic review.
Gartlehner G; Thaler KJ; Chapman A; Kaminski A; Berzaczy D; Van Noord MG; Helbich TH
Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2013 Jun; 11(2):87-93. PubMed ID: 23750571
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Utilization and cost of diagnostic imaging and biopsies following positive screening mammography in the southern breast cancer screening region of the Netherlands, 2000-2005.
Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; Plaisier ML; Roumen RM; van Ineveld BM; van Beek M; de Koning HJ
Eur Radiol; 2008 Nov; 18(11):2390-7. PubMed ID: 18491102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Performance of a subsidised mammographic screening programme in Malaysia, a middle-income Asian country.
Lee M; Mariapun S; Rajaram N; Teo SH; Yip CH
BMC Public Health; 2017 Jan; 17(1):127. PubMed ID: 28129762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening in women on dialysis.
Wong G; Howard K; Chapman JR; Craig JC
Am J Kidney Dis; 2008 Nov; 52(5):916-29. PubMed ID: 18789566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The Long-Term Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of Organized versus Opportunistic Screening for Breast Cancer in Austria.
Schiller-Fruehwirth I; Jahn B; Einzinger P; Zauner G; Urach C; Siebert U
Value Health; 2017 Sep; 20(8):1048-1057. PubMed ID: 28964436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
