394 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27814820)
81. Breast cancer screening in BRCA1 mutation carriers: effectiveness of MR imaging--Markov Monte Carlo decision analysis.
Lee JM; Kopans DB; McMahon PM; Halpern EF; Ryan PD; Weinstein MC; Gazelle GS
Radiology; 2008 Mar; 246(3):763-71. PubMed ID: 18309013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
82. Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment After High-Deductible Insurance Enrollment.
Wharam JF; Zhang F; Lu CY; Wagner AK; Nekhlyudov L; Earle CC; Soumerai SB; Ross-Degnan D
J Clin Oncol; 2018 Apr; 36(11):1121-1127. PubMed ID: 29489428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
83. Personalized Mammography Screening and Screening Adherence-A Simulation and Economic Evaluation.
Arnold M; Quante AS
Value Health; 2018 Jul; 21(7):799-808. PubMed ID: 30005752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
84. Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening using mammography in Vietnamese women.
Nguyen CP; Adang EMM
PLoS One; 2018; 13(3):e0194996. PubMed ID: 29579131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
85. Mammography-detected ultrasound-negative asymptomatic micro-calcifications in Chinese women: Would it be safe to watch and wait?
Xu Y; Pan B; Zhou YD; Yao R; Zhu QL; Zhang J; Mao F; Lin Y; Shen SJ; Sun Q
Med Hypotheses; 2018 Sep; 118():9-12. PubMed ID: 30037622
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
86. Telemammography for breast cancer screening: a cost-effective approach in Argentina.
Malek Pascha VA; Sun L; Gilardino R; Legood R
BMJ Health Care Inform; 2021 Jul; 28(1):. PubMed ID: 34281995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
87. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms.
Mandelblatt JS; Cronin KA; Bailey S; Berry DA; de Koning HJ; Draisma G; Huang H; Lee SJ; Munsell M; Plevritis SK; Ravdin P; Schechter CB; Sigal B; Stoto MA; Stout NK; van Ravesteyn NT; Venier J; Zelen M; Feuer EJ;
Ann Intern Med; 2009 Nov; 151(10):738-47. PubMed ID: 19920274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
88. The Stockholm Mammographic Screening Trial: Risks and benefits in age group 40-49 years.
Frisell J; Lidbrink E
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 1997; (22):49-51. PubMed ID: 9709275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
89. Breast biopsy: a study of cost-effectiveness.
Doberneck RC
Ann Surg; 1980 Aug; 192(2):152-6. PubMed ID: 6773483
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
90. Comparing the cost-effectiveness of the triple test score to traditional methods for evaluating palpable breast masses.
Morris AM; Flowers CR; Morris KT; Schmidt WA; Pommier RF; Vetto JT
Med Care; 2003 Aug; 41(8):962-71. PubMed ID: 12886175
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
91. A modelling study to evaluate the costs and effects of lowering the starting age of population breast cancer screening.
Koleva-Kolarova RG; Daszczuk AM; de Jonge C; Abu Hantash MK; Zhan ZZ; Postema EJ; Feenstra TL; Pijnappel RM; Greuter MJW; de Bock GH
Maturitas; 2018 Mar; 109():81-88. PubMed ID: 29452787
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
92. Which breast to biopsy: an expanding dilemma.
Lewis JD; Milbrath JR; Shaffer KA; Darin JC; DeCosse JJ
Ann Surg; 1976 Sep; 184(3):253-7. PubMed ID: 962393
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
93. Radiologist Agreement for Mammographic Recall by Case Difficulty and Finding Type.
Onega T; Smith M; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Geller BA; Kerlikowske K; Buist DS; Rosenberg RD; Smith RA; Sickles EA; Haneuse S; Anderson ML; Yankaskas B
J Am Coll Radiol; 2016 Nov; 13(11S):e72-e79. PubMed ID: 27814827
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
94. Breast cancer screening by mammography in Norway. Is it cost-effective?
Norum J
Ann Oncol; 1999 Feb; 10(2):197-203. PubMed ID: 10093689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
95. Performance of 4 years of population-based mammography screening for breast cancer combined with ultrasound in Tyrol / Austria.
Geiger-Gritsch S; Daniaux M; Buchberger W; Knapp R; Oberaigner W
Wien Klin Wochenschr; 2018 Feb; 130(3-4):92-99. PubMed ID: 29209825
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
96. Societal costs and effects of implementing population-based mammography screening in Greenland.
Christensen MK; Niclasen BV; Iburg KM
Int J Circumpolar Health; 2017; 76(1):1373580. PubMed ID: 28934900
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
97. Patient-initiated mobile mammography: analysis of the patients and the problems.
Rubin E; Frank MS; Stanley RJ; Bernreuter WK; Han SY
South Med J; 1990 Feb; 83(2):178-84. PubMed ID: 2305298
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
98. Breast ultrasound in breast cancer surveillance; incremental cancers found at what cost?
Bromley L; Xu J; Loh SW; Chew G; Lau E; Yeo B
Breast; 2020 Dec; 54():272-277. PubMed ID: 33242753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
99. Impact of specificity on cost-effectiveness of screening women at high risk of breast cancer with magnetic resonance imaging, mammography and ultrasound.
Kaiser CG; Dietzel M; Vag T; Rübenthaler J; Froelich MF; Tollens F
Eur J Radiol; 2021 Apr; 137():109576. PubMed ID: 33556759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
100. Wage -specific assessment of mammography screening in Brazilian women.
Rovere RK; Lima A
Klin Onkol; 2014; 27(2):108-10. PubMed ID: 24739047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
