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 *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31683411)

  • 1. [Dentification and correction of the lead-time bias and length bias in cancer screening studies].
    Yang Z; Zhou JC; Chen R; Wei WW
    Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2019 Nov; 53(11):1183-1187. PubMed ID: 31683411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Estimating benefits of screening from observational cohort studies.
    Flanders WD; Longini IM
    Stat Med; 1990 Aug; 9(8):969-80. PubMed ID: 2218198
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Continuous tumour growth models, lead time estimation and length bias in breast cancer screening studies.
    Abrahamsson L; Isheden G; Czene K; Humphreys K
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2020 Feb; 29(2):374-395. PubMed ID: 30854935
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Evaluating cancer screening programs using survival analysis.
    Vratanar B; Pohar Perme M
    Biom J; 2023 Oct; 65(7):e2200344. PubMed ID: 37278228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Screening for cancer: evaluating the evidence.
    Gates TJ
    Am Fam Physician; 2001 Feb; 63(3):513-22. PubMed ID: 11272300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Controversies in lung cancer screening.
    Gill RR; Jaklitsch MT; Jacobson FL
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2013 Dec; 10(12):931-6. PubMed ID: 24295943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Patient follow up screening evaluations. Examples with regard to congenital hip dislocation and congenital heart disease.
    Juttmann RE; Hess J; van Oortmarssen GJ; van der Maas PJ
    J Epidemiol Community Health; 2001 Feb; 55(2):126-31. PubMed ID: 11154252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Cancer screening: the clash of science and intuition.
    Kramer BS; Croswell JM
    Annu Rev Med; 2009; 60():125-37. PubMed ID: 18803476
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Epidemiologic approach for cancer screening. Problems in design and analysis of trials.
    Prorok PC
    Am J Pediatr Hematol Oncol; 1992 May; 14(2):117-28. PubMed ID: 1530116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Assessing the effectiveness of a cancer screening test in the presence of another screening modality.
    Chubak J; Hubbard RA; Johnson E; Kamineni A; Rutter CM
    J Med Screen; 2015 Jun; 22(2):69-75. PubMed ID: 25492942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Quantifying Overdiagnosis in Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review to Evaluate the Methodology.
    Ripping TM; Ten Haaf K; Verbeek ALM; van Ravesteyn NT; Broeders MJM
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2017 Oct; 109(10):. PubMed ID: 29117353
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Assessing the efficacy of cancer screening.
    Jacklyn G; Bell K; Hayen A
    Public Health Res Pract; 2017 Jul; 27(3):. PubMed ID: 28765860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Using real-world evidence to support a changing paradigm for cancer screening: A commentary.
    Leavy MB; Starzyk K; Myers E; Curhan G; Gliklich R
    Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf; 2020 Oct; 29(10):1312-1315. PubMed ID: 32902061
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The science of early detection.
    Kramer BS
    Urol Oncol; 2004; 22(4):344-7. PubMed ID: 15283894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Estimates of lead time and length bias in a breast cancer screening program.
    Shwartz M
    Cancer; 1980 Aug; 46(4):844-51. PubMed ID: 7397650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Simulation models in population breast cancer screening: A systematic review.
    Koleva-Kolarova RG; Zhan Z; Greuter MJ; Feenstra TL; De Bock GH
    Breast; 2015 Aug; 24(4):354-63. PubMed ID: 25906671
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [The effect of cancer screening on mortality. The case-control study as evaluation method].
    Verbeek AL; van Dijck JA; Broeders MJ
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2014; 158():A7047. PubMed ID: 24823851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Length and lead time biases in radiologic screening for lung cancer.
    Soda H; Oka M; Tomita H; Nagashima S; Soda M; Kohno S
    Respiration; 1999; 66(6):511-7. PubMed ID: 10575336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Reducing the effects of lead-time bias, length bias and over-detection in evaluating screening mammography: a censored bivariate data approach.
    Mahnken JD; Chan W; Freeman DH; Freeman JL
    Stat Methods Med Res; 2008 Dec; 17(6):643-63. PubMed ID: 18445697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Multi-detector CT screening for lung cancer is still to be discouraged for the time being].
    van Klaveren RJ; Oudkerk M; Mali WP; de Koning HJ
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2008 Jan; 152(3):125-8. PubMed ID: 18271456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.