142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9189023)
1. Image problems. Science, fear and the politics of mammograms.
Speer TL
Hosp Health Netw; 1997 Jun; 71(11):36, 38. PubMed ID: 9189023
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. More mammography muddle: emotions, politics, science, costs, and polarization.
Berlin L; Hall FM
Radiology; 2010 May; 255(2):311-6. PubMed ID: 20413746
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Evidence-based advocacy rather than emotion in defense of screening mammography.
Patti J; Lee C
Radiology; 2010 Oct; 257(1):295-6; author reply 296-7. PubMed ID: 20851948
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Wise words from Drs Berlin and Hall.
Baines CJ
Radiology; 2010 Oct; 257(1):298; author reply 298. PubMed ID: 20851950
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: the unbalanced view.
Evans WP; Lee CH; Monsees BS; Monticciolo DL; Rebner M
Radiology; 2010 Oct; 257(1):297; author reply 297-8. PubMed ID: 20851949
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines are not supported by the scientific evidence.
Kopans DB
Radiology; 2010 Oct; 257(1):294-5; author reply 295. PubMed ID: 20851947
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Whither scientific deliberation in health policy recommendations? Alice in the Wonderland of breast-cancer screening.
Fletcher SW
N Engl J Med; 1997 Apr; 336(16):1180-3. PubMed ID: 9099666
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluating new medical technology: science or politics?
Noe TJ
HMO; 1995; 36(4):48-53. PubMed ID: 10166486
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. The mammography muddle.
Rogers LF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1997 May; 168(5):1151. PubMed ID: 9129402
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Correlation is not causation.
Rimer BK
Am J Public Health; 1998 May; 88(5):832-3; discussion 834-5. PubMed ID: 9585761
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. The mammogram war.
Begley S
Newsweek; 1997 Feb; 129(8):54-8. PubMed ID: 10164990
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Confusion about breast-cancer screening.
Linton OW
N Engl J Med; 1997 Dec; 337(25):1850. PubMed ID: 9411264
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. The breast cancer screening controversy and the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference on Breast Cancer Screening for Women Ages 40-49.
Kopans DB
Radiology; 1999 Jan; 210(1):4-9. PubMed ID: 9885578
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Perspectives. Policymakers grapple with foundations of process for coverage decisions, appeals.
Cunningham R
Med Health; 1999 May; 53(18):suppl 1-4. PubMed ID: 10387750
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. The politics of breast cancer.
Watson T
US News World Rep; 1997 Apr; 122(13):12. PubMed ID: 10166749
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Experimental medical treatments: who should decide coverage?
Collins JC
Spec Law Dig Health Care Law; 1998 Jan; (226):9-45. PubMed ID: 10176412
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Finance issue brief: mandated benefits: breast cancer screening coverage requirements: year end report-2003.
Plaza CI
Issue Brief Health Policy Track Serv; 2003 Dec; ():1-11. PubMed ID: 14974439
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Better care for breast cancer.
Zablocki E
HMO; 1995; 36(4):64-9. PubMed ID: 10166489
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Health technology assessment implementation: the politics of ethics.
Callahan D
Med Decis Making; 2012; 32(1):E13-9. PubMed ID: 22031539
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Health insurance oversight issue brief: mandated benefits: breast cancer screening coverage requirements: year end report--2004.
Plaza CI
Issue Brief Health Policy Track Serv; 2004 Dec; ():1-11. PubMed ID: 15726740
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
