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 *

168 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9200055)

  • 1. UK breast screening programme: how does it reflect the Forrest recommendations?
    Gerard K; Brown J; Johnston K
    J Med Screen; 1997; 4(1):10-5. PubMed ID: 9200055
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Evaluation of the population dose to the UK population from the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme.
    Faulkner K; Wallis MG; Neilson F; Whitaker CJ
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):184-90. PubMed ID: 18483008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Breast cancer screening in 21 countries: delivery of services, notification of results and outcomes ascertainment.
    Ballard-Barbash R; Klabunde C; Paci E; Broeders M; Coleman EA; Fracheboud J; Bouchard F; Rennert G; Shapiro S
    Eur J Cancer Prev; 1999 Oct; 8(5):417-26. PubMed ID: 10548397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [The effectiveness of population-based breast cancer screening programme].
    Szynglarewicz B; Matkowski R; Kasprzak P; Kotowska J; Forgacz J; Pudełko M; Kornafel J
    Pol Merkur Lekarski; 2009 Feb; 26(152):117-20. PubMed ID: 19388515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. The professional quality criteria of Italian breast screening radiologists: results from a national survey comparing the programmes started in 2000-2012 versus the ones started in 1990-1999.
    Morrone D; Giordano L; Artuso F; Bernardi D; Fedato C; Frigerio A; Giorgi D; Naldoni C; Saguatti G; Severi D; Taffurelli M; Terribile D; Ventura L; Bucchi L
    Ann Ist Super Sanita; 2017; 53(2):163-166. PubMed ID: 28617264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Computer-aided detection in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Programme: prospective study.
    Khoo LA; Taylor P; Given-Wilson RM
    Radiology; 2005 Nov; 237(2):444-9. PubMed ID: 16244252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Mammography screening in the county of Fyn. November 1993-December 1999.
    Njor SH; Olsen AH; Bellstrøm T; Dyreborg U; Bak M; Axelsson C; Graversen HP; Schwartz W; Lynge E
    APMIS Suppl; 2003; (110):1-33. PubMed ID: 12739252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Systematic screening for breast cancer in Rhone].
    Courtial I; Brémond A; Victoria J
    J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris); 1996; 25(1):9-16. PubMed ID: 8901296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Breast and cervical screening for women in the United Kingdom.
    Patnick J
    Hong Kong Med J; 2000 Dec; 6(4):409-11. PubMed ID: 11177163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Organisation of a national screening programme.
    Austoker J
    Br Med Bull; 1991 Apr; 47(2):416-26. PubMed ID: 1933222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Optimal screening mammography reading volumes; evidence from real life in the East Midlands region of the NHS Breast Screening Programme.
    Cornford E; Reed J; Murphy A; Bennett R; Evans A
    Clin Radiol; 2011 Feb; 66(2):103-7. PubMed ID: 21216324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Influence of number of views and mammographic film density on the detection of invasive cancers: results from the NHS Breast Screening Programme.
    Young KC; Wallis MG; Blanks RG; Moss SM
    Br J Radiol; 1997 May; 70(833):482-8. PubMed ID: 9227229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The costs of mammography screening in New Zealand: evidence from the pilot programmes.
    Menon A; Devlin NJ; Richardson AK
    N Z Med J; 1994 Dec; 107(991):501-3. PubMed ID: 7830979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Reduction in interval cancer rates following the introduction of two-view mammography in the UK breast screening programme.
    Dibden A; Offman J; Parmar D; Jenkins J; Slater J; Binysh K; McSorley J; Scorfield S; Cumming P; Liao XH; Ryan M; Harker D; Stevens G; Rogers N; Blanks R; Sellars S; Patnick J; Duffy SW
    Br J Cancer; 2014 Feb; 110(3):560-4. PubMed ID: 24366303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.