165 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38304718)
1. Benefits and harms of polygenic risk scores in organised cancer screening programmes: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Xia C; Xu Y; Li H; He S; Chen W
Lancet Reg Health West Pac; 2024 Mar; 44():101012. PubMed ID: 38304718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Utility of polygenic risk scores in UK cancer screening: a modelling analysis.
Huntley C; Torr B; Sud A; Rowlands CF; Way R; Snape K; Hanson H; Swanton C; Broggio J; Lucassen A; McCartney M; Houlston RS; Hingorani AD; Jones ME; Turnbull C
Lancet Oncol; 2023 Jun; 24(6):658-668. PubMed ID: 37178708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A cost-effectiveness analysis of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography and a polygenic risk score.
Zhao Z; Gu S; Yang Y; Wu W; Du L; Wang G; Dong H
BMC Cancer; 2024 Jan; 24(1):73. PubMed ID: 38218803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Cost effectiveness analysis of a polygenic risk tailored breast cancer screening programme in Singapore.
Wong JZY; Chai JH; Yeoh YS; Mohamed Riza NK; Liu J; Teo YY; Wee HL; Hartman M
BMC Health Serv Res; 2021 Apr; 21(1):379. PubMed ID: 33892705
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Cost-effectiveness of home-based screening of the general population for albuminuria to prevent progression of cardiovascular and kidney disease.
Pouwels XGLV; van Mil D; Kieneker LM; Boersma C; van Etten RW; Evers-Roeten B; Heerspink HJL; Hemmelder MH; Langelaan MLP; Thelen MHM; Gansevoort RT; Koffijberg H
EClinicalMedicine; 2024 Feb; 68():102414. PubMed ID: 38299045
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The impact of risk stratification by polygenic risk and age on breast cancer screening in women aged 40-49 years: a modelling study.
Huntley C; Torr B; Sud A; Houlston RS; Hingorani AD; Jones ME; Turnbull C
Lancet; 2023 Nov; 402 Suppl 1():S54. PubMed ID: 37997097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Cost-effectiveness and Benefit-to-Harm Ratio of Risk-Stratified Screening for Breast Cancer: A Life-Table Model.
Pashayan N; Morris S; Gilbert FJ; Pharoah PDP
JAMA Oncol; 2018 Nov; 4(11):1504-1510. PubMed ID: 29978189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Combined population genomic screening for three high-risk conditions in Australia: a modelling study.
Lacaze P; Marquina C; Tiller J; Brotchie A; Kang YJ; Merritt MA; Green RC; Watts GF; Nowak KJ; Manchanda R; Canfell K; James P; Winship I; McNeil JJ; Ademi Z
EClinicalMedicine; 2023 Dec; 66():102297. PubMed ID: 38192593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Cost-effectiveness of Population-Wide Genomic Screening for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in the United States.
Guzauskas GF; Garbett S; Zhou Z; Spencer SJ; Smith HS; Hao J; Hassen D; Snyder SR; Graves JA; Peterson JF; Williams MS; Veenstra DL
JAMA Netw Open; 2020 Oct; 3(10):e2022874. PubMed ID: 33119106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cost-effectiveness of using artificial intelligence versus polygenic risk score to guide breast cancer screening.
Mital S; Nguyen HV
BMC Cancer; 2022 May; 22(1):501. PubMed ID: 35524200
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies for osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.
Nayak S; Roberts MS; Greenspan SL
Ann Intern Med; 2011 Dec; 155(11):751-61. PubMed ID: 22147714
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Cost-effectiveness of Low-Dose Computed Tomography With a Plasma-Based Biomarker for Lung Cancer Screening in China.
Zhao Z; Wang Y; Wu W; Yang Y; Du L; Dong H
JAMA Netw Open; 2022 May; 5(5):e2213634. PubMed ID: 35608858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The cost-effectiveness of non-invasive stool-based colorectal cancer screening offerings from age 45 for a commercial and medicare population.
Ebner D; Kisiel J; Barnieh L; Sharma R; Smith NJ; Estes C; Vahdat V; Ozbay AB; Limburg P; Fendrick AM
J Med Econ; 2023; 26(1):1219-1226. PubMed ID: 37752872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Benefit-to-harm ratio and cost-effectiveness of government-recommended gastric cancer screening in China: A modeling study.
Qin S; Wang X; Li S; Tan C; Zeng X; Wu M; Peng Y; Wang L; Wan X
Front Public Health; 2022; 10():955120. PubMed ID: 36033760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The cost-effectiveness of screening for oral cancer in primary care.
Speight PM; Palmer S; Moles DR; Downer MC; Smith DH; Henriksson M; Augustovski F
Health Technol Assess; 2006 Apr; 10(14):1-144, iii-iv. PubMed ID: 16707071
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Decision-analytic modeling to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HPV-DNA testing in primary cervical cancer screening in Germany.
Sroczynski G; Schnell-Inderst P; Mühlberger N; Lang K; Aidelsburger P; Wasem J; Mittendorf T; Engel J; Hillemanns P; Petry KU; Krämer A; Siebert U
GMS Health Technol Assess; 2010 Apr; 6():Doc05. PubMed ID: 21289878
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Cost-effectiveness of volume computed tomography in lung cancer screening: a cohort simulation based on Nelson study outcomes.
Pan X; Dvortsin E; Baldwin DR; Groen HJM; Ramaker D; Ryan J; Berge HT; Velikanova R; Oudkerk M; Postma MJ
J Med Econ; 2024; 27(1):27-38. PubMed ID: 38050691
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Cost-effectiveness of a low-dose computed tomography screening programme for lung cancer in New Zealand.
Jaine R; Kvizhinadze G; Nair N; Blakely T
Lung Cancer; 2018 Oct; 124():233-240. PubMed ID: 30268467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cardiac resynchronisation (biventricular pacing) for heart failure: systematic review and economic model.
Fox M; Mealing S; Anderson R; Dean J; Stein K; Price A; Taylor RS
Health Technol Assess; 2007 Nov; 11(47):iii-iv, ix-248. PubMed ID: 17999842
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
