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 *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9122673)

  • 41. A limitation of ACRIN DMIST.
    Hixson GL; Hendrick RE; Pisano ED; Yaffe MJ; Gatsonis CA
    Radiology; 2008 Aug; 248(2):702; author reply 702-3. PubMed ID: 18641261
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Mammography screening: are women really giving informed consent? (Countering the counterpoint).
    Baines CJ
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2003 Oct; 95(20):1512-3. PubMed ID: 14559872
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Outcome measures of an Australian breast-screening program.
    Rodger A; Kavanagh AM
    Med J Aust; 1998 Aug; 169(4):179-80. PubMed ID: 9734571
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. The debate over mass mammography in Britain. The case for.
    Warren R
    BMJ; 1988 Oct; 297(6654):969-70. PubMed ID: 3142571
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Response to Kopans.
    Elwood JM; Cox B; Richardson AK
    Online J Curr Clin Trials; 1993 Mar; Doc No 43():[1183 words; 9 paragraphs]. PubMed ID: 8306002
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Screening mammography.
    McRae S
    Can J Rural Med; 2010; 15(4):167; author reply 168. PubMed ID: 20875318
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. [The attendance of the first screening round (2002-2003) of the Hungarian organized breast cancer screening program and its effect on the number of diagnostic and screening mammography].
    Boncz I; Sebestyén A; Döbrossy L; Péntek Z; Kovács A; Csaba D; Budai A; Ember I
    Orv Hetil; 2005 Sep; 146(38):1963-70. PubMed ID: 16238249
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. The Swedish mammography screening trials. Check up on your sources.
    Dean PB
    Lakartidningen; 2000 Jun; 97(25):3105-6. PubMed ID: 10911709
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Comment on the Elwood Paper.
    Kopans DB
    Online J Curr Clin Trials; 1993 Mar; Doc No 42():[1687 words; 8 paragraphs]. PubMed ID: 8117361
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. European Society of Mastology Consensus Conference on Breast Cancer screening, Paris, 4-5 February 1993: report of the Evaluation Committee.
    Wald NJ; Chamberlain J; Hackshaw A
    Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol); 1994; 6(4):261-8. PubMed ID: 7986765
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Maximizing informed cancer screening decisions.
    Walter LC; Lewis CL
    Arch Intern Med; 2007 Oct; 167(19):2027-8. PubMed ID: 17954794
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. [Mammography screening in Germany: how, when and why?].
    Bick U
    Rofo; 2006 Oct; 178(10):957-69. PubMed ID: 17021975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Mammographic screening from age 40 years.
    Gøtzsche PC
    Lancet; 2007 Mar; 369(9563):737-738. PubMed ID: 17336640
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. DMIST results: technologic or observer variability?
    Kopans DB; Pisano ED; Acharyya S; Hendrick RE; Yaffe MJ; Conant EF; Fajardo LL; Bassett LW; Baum JK; Gatsonis CA
    Radiology; 2008 Aug; 248(2):703; author reply 703. PubMed ID: 18641262
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. The debate over mass mammography in Britain. The case against.
    Skrabanek P
    BMJ; 1988 Oct; 297(6654):971-2. PubMed ID: 3142572
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Rejoinder to Elwood's reply.
    Kopans DB
    Online J Curr Clin Trials; 1993 Apr; Doc No 47():[1069 words; 5 paragraphs]. PubMed ID: 8306004
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Evaluation of the effect on breast cancer mortality of population based mammography screening programmes.
    Törnberg S; Carstensen J; Hakulinen T; Lenner P; Hatschek T; Lundgren B
    J Med Screen; 1994 Jul; 1(3):184-7. PubMed ID: 8790514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Flawed methods explain the effect of mammography screening in Nijmegen.
    Jørgensen KJ
    Br J Cancer; 2011 Aug; 105(4):592-3; author reply 594-5. PubMed ID: 21792194
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Implications of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study.
    Miller AB
    Womens Health (Lond); 2014 Jul; 10(4):345-7. PubMed ID: 25259895
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. The Two-County breast screening trial cannot provide a reliable estimate of the effect of breast cancer screening.
    Jørgensen KJ; Keen JD; Zahl PH; Gøtzsche PC
    Radiology; 2012 Feb; 262(2):729-30; author reply 730-1. PubMed ID: 22282190
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.