143 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38447293)
1. Predictors of re-attendance at biennial screening mammography following a false positive referral: A study among women in the south of the Netherlands.
Voogd AC; Molnar Z; Nederend J; Schipper RJ; Strobbe LJA; Duijm LEM
Breast; 2024 Apr; 74():103702. PubMed ID: 38447293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Re-attendance after false-positive screening mammography: a population-based study in the Netherlands.
Setz-Pels W; Duijm LE; Coebergh JW; Rutten M; Nederend J; Voogd AC
Br J Cancer; 2013 Oct; 109(8):2044-50. PubMed ID: 24052045
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Re-attendance at biennial screening mammography following a repeated false positive recall.
Klompenhouwer EG; Duijm LE; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Strobbe LJ; Louwman MW; Coebergh JW; Venderink D; Broeders MJ
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2014 Jun; 145(2):429-37. PubMed ID: 24748569
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Cumulative risk of a false-positive screening result: A retrospective cohort study using empirical data from 10 biennial screening rounds in BreastScreen Norway.
Tsuruda KM; Larsen M; Román M; Hofvind S
Cancer; 2022 Apr; 128(7):1373-1380. PubMed ID: 34931707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Mammography screening for breast cancer in Copenhagen April 1991-March 1997. Mammography Screening Evaluation Group.
Lynge E
APMIS Suppl; 1998; 83():1-44. PubMed ID: 9850674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Predictors of non-attendance for second round mammography in an Australian mammographic screening programme.
O'Byrne AM; Kavanagh AM; Ugoni A; Diver F
J Med Screen; 2000; 7(4):190-4. PubMed ID: 11202585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Association of diagnostic work-up with subsequent attendance in a breast cancer screening program for false-positive cases.
Seigneurin A; Exbrayat C; Labarère J; Delafosse P; Poncet F; Colonna M
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2011 May; 127(1):221-8. PubMed ID: 20809364
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Likelihood of early detection of breast cancer in relation to false-positive risk in life-time mammographic screening: population-based cohort study.
Otten JDM; Fracheboud J; den Heeten GJ; Otto SJ; Holland R; de Koning HJ; Broeders MJM; Verbeek ALM
Ann Oncol; 2013 Oct; 24(10):2501-2506. PubMed ID: 23788759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Factors determining non-attendance in breast cancer screening among women in the Netherlands: a national study.
Gong J; Kampadellis G; Kong Q; Spijker W
Health Promot Int; 2023 Jun; 38(3):. PubMed ID: 35137088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Cumulative risks of false positive recall and screen-detected breast cancer after multiple screening examinations.
Kregting LM; van Ravesteyn NT; Chootipongchaivat S; Heijnsdijk EAM; Otten JDM; Broeders MJM; de Koning HJ
Int J Cancer; 2023 Jul; 153(2):312-319. PubMed ID: 37038266
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Impact of false-positive mammography on subsequent screening attendance and risk of cancer.
McCann J; Stockton D; Godward S
Breast Cancer Res; 2002; 4(5):R11. PubMed ID: 12223128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance.
Brett J; Austoker J
J Public Health Med; 2001 Dec; 23(4):292-300. PubMed ID: 11873891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Risk stratification of women with false-positive test results in mammography screening based on mammographic morphology and density: A case control study.
Winkel RR; Euler-Chelpin MV; Lynge E; Diao P; Lillholm M; Kallenberg M; Forman JL; Nielsen MB; Uldall WY; Nielsen M; Vejborg I
Cancer Epidemiol; 2017 Aug; 49():53-60. PubMed ID: 28558329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Long term breast cancer screening in Nijmegen, The Netherlands: the nine rounds from 1975-92.
Otten JD; van Dijck JA; Peer PG; Straatman H; Verbeek AL; Mravunac M; Hendriks JH; Holland R
J Epidemiol Community Health; 1996 Jun; 50(3):353-8. PubMed ID: 8935470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The cumulative risk of false-positive results in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program: updated results.
Roman M; Hubbard RA; Sebuodegard S; Miglioretti DL; Castells X; Hofvind S
Cancer; 2013 Nov; 119(22):3952-8. PubMed ID: 23963877
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Additional double reading of screening mammograms by radiologic technologists: impact on screening performance parameters.
Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; de Koning HJ
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Aug; 99(15):1162-70. PubMed ID: 17652282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. False-positive results in the randomized controlled trial of mammographic screening from age 40 ("Age" trial).
Johns LE; Moss SM;
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2010 Nov; 19(11):2758-64. PubMed ID: 20837718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The impact of compression force and pressure at prevalent screening on subsequent re-attendance in a national screening program.
Moshina N; Sebuødegård S; Holen ÅS; Waade GG; Tsuruda K; Hofvind S
Prev Med; 2018 Mar; 108():129-136. PubMed ID: 29337068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Results After 10 Years of Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography.
Ho TH; Bissell MCS; Kerlikowske K; Hubbard RA; Sprague BL; Lee CI; Tice JA; Tosteson ANA; Miglioretti DL
JAMA Netw Open; 2022 Mar; 5(3):e222440. PubMed ID: 35333365
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
