166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30541383)
1. Test sensitivity of mammography and mean sojourn time over 40 years of breast cancer screening in Nijmegen (The Netherlands).
Aarts A; Duffy SW; Geurts S; Vulkan DP; Otten J; Hsu CY; Chen T; Verbeek A; Broeders M
J Med Screen; 2019 Sep; 26(3):147-153. PubMed ID: 30541383
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Estimating mean sojourn time and screening test sensitivity in breast cancer mammography screening: new results.
Weedon-Fekjaer H; Vatten LJ; Aalen OO; Lindqvist B; Tretli S
J Med Screen; 2005; 12(4):172-8. PubMed ID: 16417693
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: a prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands.
Klompenhouwer EG; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Strobbe LJ; de Haan AF; Wauters CA; Broeders MJ; Duijm LE
Eur J Cancer; 2015 Feb; 51(3):391-9. PubMed ID: 25573788
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Breast cancer subtype and screening sensitivity in the Quebec Mammography Screening Program.
Perron L; Chang SL; Daigle JM; Vandal N; Theberge I; Diorio C; Lemieux J; Pelletier E; Brisson J
J Med Screen; 2019 Sep; 26(3):154-161. PubMed ID: 30572782
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Age specific sensitivity and sojourn time in a breast cancer screening programme (DOM) in The Netherlands: a comparison of different methods.
Brekelmans CT; Westers P; Faber JA; Peeters PH; Collette HJ
J Epidemiol Community Health; 1996 Feb; 50(1):68-71. PubMed ID: 8762357
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Dutch digital breast cancer screening: implications for breast cancer care.
Timmers JM; den Heeten GJ; Adang EM; Otten JD; Verbeek AL; Broeders MJ
Eur J Public Health; 2012 Dec; 22(6):925-9. PubMed ID: 22158996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [The eternal problem of false positives in mammography screening].
Seguí Díaz M
Semergen; 2017 Mar; 43(2):151-153. PubMed ID: 27117788
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Bayesian evaluation of breast cancer screening using data from two studies.
Myles JP; Nixon RM; Duffy SW; Tabar L; Boggis C; Evans G; Shenton A; Howell A
Stat Med; 2003 May; 22(10):1661-74. PubMed ID: 12720303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Estimation of overdiagnosis by detection to incidence ratio in cancer screening.
Hakama M; Malila N
J Med Screen; 2019 Sep; 26(3):135-138. PubMed ID: 30987504
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Sensitivity of screening mammography by density and texture: a cohort study from a population-based screening program in Denmark.
von Euler-Chelpin M; Lillholm M; Vejborg I; Nielsen M; Lynge E
Breast Cancer Res; 2019 Oct; 21(1):111. PubMed ID: 31623646
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Estimation of age-specific sensitivity and sojourn time in breast cancer screening studies.
Cong XJ; Shen Y; Miller AB
Stat Med; 2005 Oct; 24(20):3123-38. PubMed ID: 15977269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Parenchymal pattern in women with dense breasts. Variation with age and impact on screening outcomes: observations from a UK screening programme.
Ward L; Heller S; Hudson S; Wilkinson L
Eur Radiol; 2018 Nov; 28(11):4717-4724. PubMed ID: 29808426
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Estimation of mean sojourn time in breast cancer screening using a Markov chain model of both entry to and exit from the preclinical detectable phase.
Duffy SW; Chen HH; Tabar L; Day NE
Stat Med; 1995 Jul; 14(14):1531-43. PubMed ID: 7481190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Cost-effectiveness of screening women with familial risk for breast cancer with magnetic resonance imaging.
Saadatmand S; Tilanus-Linthorst MM; Rutgers EJ; Hoogerbrugge N; Oosterwijk JC; Tollenaar RA; Hooning M; Loo CE; Obdeijn IM; Heijnsdijk EA; de Koning HJ
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2013 Sep; 105(17):1314-21. PubMed ID: 23940285
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Measuring height and weight as part of routine mammographic screening for breast cancer.
Darcey E; Ambati R; Lund H; Redfern A; Saunders C; Thompson S; Wylie E; Stone J
J Med Screen; 2019 Dec; 26(4):204-211. PubMed ID: 31288600
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Screening caused rising incidence rates of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.
van Steenbergen LN; Voogd AC; Roukema JA; Louwman WJ; Duijm LE; Coebergh JW; van de Poll-Franse LV
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2009 May; 115(1):181-3. PubMed ID: 18516674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Breast cancer diagnosis by mammography in Kazakhstan - staging results of breast cancer with double reading.
Beysebayev E; Tulebayev K; Meymanalyev T
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2015; 16(1):31-4. PubMed ID: 25640371
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Estimation of natural history parameters of breast cancer based on non-randomized organized screening data: subsidiary analysis of effects of inter-screening interval, sensitivity, and attendance rate on reduction of advanced cancer.
Wu JC; Hakama M; Anttila A; Yen AM; Malila N; Sarkeala T; Auvinen A; Chiu SY; Chen HH
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2010 Jul; 122(2):553-66. PubMed ID: 20054645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A method for evaluating breast cancer screening strategies using screen-preventable loss of life.
Carter KJ; Castro F; Morcos RN
PLoS One; 2020; 15(12):e0243113. PubMed ID: 33275605
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
