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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

181 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29439783)

  • 21. Urban/Rural Differences in Breast and Cervical Cancer Incidence: The Mediating Roles of Socioeconomic Status and Provider Density.
    Moss JL; Liu B; Feuer EJ
    Womens Health Issues; 2017; 27(6):683-691. PubMed ID: 29108988
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Mammography capacity impact on screening rates and breast cancer stage at diagnosis.
    Elting LS; Cooksley CD; Bekele BN; Giordano SH; Shih YC; Lovell KK; Avritscher EB; Theriault R
    Am J Prev Med; 2009 Aug; 37(2):102-8. PubMed ID: 19524392
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Timeliness of abnormal screening and diagnostic mammography follow-up at facilities serving vulnerable women.
    Goldman LE; Walker R; Hubbard R; Kerlikowske K;
    Med Care; 2013 Apr; 51(4):307-14. PubMed ID: 23358386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Mammographic density and urbanization: a population-based screening study.
    Viel JF; Rymzhanova R
    J Med Screen; 2012 Mar; 19(1):20-5. PubMed ID: 22337708
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Mammography capacity and appointment wait times: barriers to breast cancer screening.
    Elkin EB; Snow JG; Leoce NM; Atoria CL; Schrag D
    Cancer Causes Control; 2012 Jan; 23(1):45-50. PubMed ID: 22037904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Access to mammography screening in a large urban population: a multi-level analysis.
    Meersman SC; Breen N; Pickle LW; Meissner HI; Simon P
    Cancer Causes Control; 2009 Oct; 20(8):1469-82. PubMed ID: 19543987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Breast and cervical carcinoma screening practices among women in rural and nonrural areas of the United States, 1998-1999.
    Coughlin SS; Thompson TD; Hall HI; Logan P; Uhler RJ
    Cancer; 2002 Jun; 94(11):2801-12. PubMed ID: 12115366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Screening mammography utilization in Tennessee women: the association with residence.
    Brown KC; Fitzhugh EC; Neutens JJ; Klein DA
    J Rural Health; 2009; 25(2):167-73. PubMed ID: 19785582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Contradictions in women's health care provision: a case study of attendance for breast cancer screening.
    Ross NA; Rosenberg MW; Pross DC; Bass B
    Soc Sci Med; 1994 Oct; 39(8):1015-25. PubMed ID: 7809655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Changes in geographic accessibility to mammography by state and rural-urban status, United States, 2006-2022.
    Wiese D; Islami F; Henry KA
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2023 Mar; 115(3):337-340. PubMed ID: 36515214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Associations of County-level Radiologist and Mammography Facility Supply with Screening Mammography Rates in the United States.
    Rosenkrantz AB; Moy L; Fleming MM; Duszak R
    Acad Radiol; 2018 Jul; 25(7):883-888. PubMed ID: 29373212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. [Screening mammography in Polish female population aged 45 to 54].
    Bińkowska M; Debski R
    Ginekol Pol; 2005 Nov; 76(11):871-8. PubMed ID: 16566361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Geographic Access to Mammography and Its Relationship to Breast Cancer Screening and Stage at Diagnosis: A Systematic Review.
    Khan-Gates JA; Ersek JL; Eberth JM; Adams SA; Pruitt SL
    Womens Health Issues; 2015; 25(5):482-93. PubMed ID: 26219677
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Geographic diffusion of digital mammography in the United States.
    Wiese D; Stroup AM; Islami F; Mattes M; Baylor E; Boscoe FP; Henry KA
    Cancer; 2023 Jul; 129(14):2144-2151. PubMed ID: 36988982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Is Availability of Mammography Services at Federally Qualified Health Centers Associated with Breast Cancer Mortality-to-Incidence Ratios? An Ecological Analysis.
    Adams SA; Choi SK; Eberth JM; Friedman DB; Yip MP; Tucker-Seeley RD; Wigfall LT; Hébert JR
    J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2015 Nov; 24(11):916-23. PubMed ID: 26208105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Facility characteristics do not explain higher false-positive rates in diagnostic mammography at facilities serving vulnerable women.
    Goldman LE; Walker R; Miglioretti DL; Smith-Bindman R; Kerlikowske AK;
    Med Care; 2012 Mar; 50(3):210-6. PubMed ID: 22186768
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Effect of rurality on screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing mammography.
    Leung J; McKenzie S; Martin J; McLaughlin D
    Rural Remote Health; 2014; 14(2):2730. PubMed ID: 24953122
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Limited Service Availability, Readiness, and Use of Facility-Based Delivery Care in Haiti: A Study Linking Health Facility Data and Population Data.
    Wang W; Winner M; Burgert-Brucker CR
    Glob Health Sci Pract; 2017 Jun; 5(2):244-260. PubMed ID: 28539502
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. A catchment and location-allocation analysis of mammography access in Delaware, US: implications for disparities in geographic access to breast cancer screening.
    Webster JL; Goldstein ND; Rowland JP; Tuite CM; Siegel SD
    Breast Cancer Res; 2023 Nov; 25(1):137. PubMed ID: 37941020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Social determinants of mammography screening among women aged 50 to 59, Peru 2015.
    Chang-Cabanillas S; Peñafiel-Sam J; Alarcón-Guevara S; Pereyra-Elías R
    Health Care Women Int; 2021 Jan; 42(1):92-106. PubMed ID: 32628571
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.