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 *

81 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8785635)

  • 1. The value of the second view in screening mammography.
    Warren RM; Duffy SW; Bashir S
    Br J Radiol; 1996 Feb; 69(818):105-8. PubMed ID: 8785635
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of two view versus one view procedures in London.
    Bryan S; Brown J; Warren R
    J Epidemiol Community Health; 1995 Feb; 49(1):70-8. PubMed ID: 7707010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A comparison of cancer detection rates achieved by breast cancer screening programmes by number of readers, for one and two view mammography: results from the UK National Health Service breast screening programme.
    Blanks RG; Wallis MG; Moss SM
    J Med Screen; 1998; 5(4):195-201. PubMed ID: 9934650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. UKCCCR multicentre randomised controlled trial of one and two view mammography in breast cancer screening.
    Wald NJ; Murphy P; Major P; Parkes C; Townsend J; Frost C
    BMJ; 1995 Nov; 311(7014):1189-93. PubMed ID: 7488893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Observer variability in cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening in a study of two versus one view mammography.
    Blanks RG; Wallis MG; Given-Wilson RM
    J Med Screen; 1999; 6(3):152-8. PubMed ID: 10572847
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Efficiency of cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening: two versus one view mammography.
    Blanks RG; Given-Wilson RM; Moss SM
    J Med Screen; 1998; 5(3):141-5. PubMed ID: 9795875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Introduction of additional double reading of mammograms by radiographers: effects on a biennial screening programme outcome.
    Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; van Ineveld BM; Roumen RM; de Koning HJ
    Eur J Cancer; 2008 Jun; 44(9):1223-8. PubMed ID: 18400488
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Two-view versus single-view mammography at subsequent screening in a region of the Dutch breast screening programme.
    van Breest Smallenburg V; Duijm LE; den Heeten GJ; Groenewoud JH; Jansen FH; Fracheboud J; Plaisier ML; van Doorne-Nagtegaal HJ; Broeders MJ
    Eur J Radiol; 2012 Sep; 81(9):2189-94. PubMed ID: 21906898
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A comparison of two view and one view mammography in the detection of small invasive cancers: results from the National Health Service breast screening programme.
    Blanks RG; Moss SM; Wallis MG
    J Med Screen; 1996; 3(4):200-3. PubMed ID: 9041485
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Mammography screening methods and diagnostic results.
    Thurfjell E
    Acta Radiol Suppl; 1995; 395():1-22. PubMed ID: 7839866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Results from 10 years of breast screening in Wales.
    Fielder H; Rogers C; Gower-Thomas K; Monypenny I; Dallimore N; Brook D; Greening S
    J Med Screen; 2001; 8(1):21-3. PubMed ID: 11373845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Incident screening cancers detected with a second mammographic view: pathological and radiological features.
    Given-Wilson RM; Blanks RG
    Clin Radiol; 1999 Nov; 54(11):724-35. PubMed ID: 10580762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Two view mammography at incident screens: cost effectiveness analysis of policy options.
    Johnston K; Brown J
    BMJ; 1999 Oct; 319(7217):1097-102. PubMed ID: 10531098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double versus single reading of mammograms.
    Brown J; Bryan S; Warren R
    BMJ; 1996 Mar; 312(7034):809-12. PubMed ID: 8608287
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Use of two view mammography compared with one view in the detection of small invasive cancers: further results from the National Health Service breast screening programme.
    Blanks RG; Moss SM; Wallis MG
    J Med Screen; 1997; 4(2):98-101. PubMed ID: 9275268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. An investigation into why two-view mammography is better than one-view in breast cancer screening.
    Hackshaw AK; Wald NJ; Michell MJ; Field S; Wilson AR
    Clin Radiol; 2000 Jun; 55(6):454-8. PubMed ID: 10873691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Modalities of reading of detection mammographies of the programme in the Bouches-du-Rhône. Results and costs 1990-1995].
    Séradour B; Wait S; Jacquemier J; Dubuc M; Piana L
    J Radiol; 1997 Jan; 78(1):49-54. PubMed ID: 9091620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Results from the NHS breast screening programme 1990-1993.
    Moss SM; Michel M; Patnick J; Johns L; Blanks R; Chamberlain J
    J Med Screen; 1995; 2(4):186-90. PubMed ID: 8719146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.