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 *

101 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8871456)

  • 1. A reader's guide to the evaluation of screening studies.
    Earle C; Hebert PC
    Postgrad Med J; 1996 Feb; 72(844):77-83. PubMed ID: 8871456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Blinded comparison of computer-aided detection with human second reading in screening mammography.
    Georgian-Smith D; Moore RH; Halpern E; Yeh ED; Rafferty EA; D'Alessandro HA; Staffa M; Hall DA; McCarthy KA; Kopans DB
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Nov; 189(5):1135-41. PubMed ID: 17954651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Principles behind practice. 8. Screening as a strategy for disease control.
    Mitchell H; Irwig L
    Med J Aust; 1991 Aug; 155(4):237-9, 242. PubMed ID: 1875838
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Breast cancer screening methods: a review of the evidence.
    Vahabi M
    Health Care Women Int; 2003 Nov; 24(9):773-93. PubMed ID: 14742116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Early detection of breast cancer: overview of the evidence on computer-aided detection in mammography screening.
    Houssami N; Given-Wilson R; Ciatto S
    J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2009 Apr; 53(2):171-6. PubMed ID: 19527363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Mammography screening: presentation of scientific evidence as a basis for communication with women].
    Mühlhauser I; Höldke B
    Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich; 2000 Oct; 94(9):721-31. PubMed ID: 11127779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A reader's guide to economic analysis in the GI literature.
    Provenzale D; Lipscomb J
    Am J Gastroenterol; 1996 Dec; 91(12):2461-70. PubMed ID: 8946967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Significant reduction in advanced breast cancer. Results of the first seven years of mammography screening in Kopparberg, Sweden.
    Tabár L; Gad A; Holmberg L; Ljungquist U
    Diagn Imaging Clin Med; 1985; 54(3-4):158-64. PubMed ID: 3896614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Screening for breast cancer. Informed consent may increase non-attendance rate.
    Baum M
    BMJ; 1995 Apr; 310(6985):1003. PubMed ID: 7727994
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Invasive breast cancers detected by screening mammography: a detailed comparison of computer-aided detection-assisted single reading and double reading.
    Cawson JN; Nickson C; Amos A; Hill G; Whan AB; Kavanagh AM
    J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2009 Oct; 53(5):442-9. PubMed ID: 19788479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Screening for breast cancer.
    Duffy SW; Smith RA; Gabe R; Tabár L; Yen AM; Chen TH
    Surg Oncol Clin N Am; 2005 Oct; 14(4):671-97. PubMed ID: 16226686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Preventive health care, 2001 update: screening mammography among women aged 40-49 years at average risk of breast cancer.
    Ringash J;
    CMAJ; 2001 Feb; 164(4):469-76. PubMed ID: 11233866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Enhancing early breast cancer screening: an expanded role for mammography facilities is needed.
    Gregorio DI; Kegeles S; Parker C; Benn S
    Cancer Detect Prev; 1991; 15(2):151-3. PubMed ID: 2032257
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of radiographer/radiologist double film reading with single reading in breast cancer screening.
    Pauli R; Hammond S; Cooke J; Ansell J
    J Med Screen; 1996; 3(1):18-22. PubMed ID: 8861046
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. US panel reaffirms controversial 2009 mammography recommendations.
    McCarthy M
    BMJ; 2015 Apr; 350():h2174. PubMed ID: 25902838
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.