140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9585761)
1. 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]
2. Mammography screening for women aged 40 through 49--a guidelines saga and a clarion call for informed decision making.
Ernster VL
Am J Public Health; 1997 Jul; 87(7):1103-6. PubMed ID: 9240097
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Screening mammography for women in their forties: the Panel of Babel.
Healy BP
J Womens Health; 1997 Feb; 6(1):1-3. PubMed ID: 9065366
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. NIH consensus panel spurs discontent.
Marwick C
JAMA; 1997 Feb; 277(7):519-20. PubMed ID: 9032145
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Final mammography recommendation?
Marwick C
JAMA; 1997 Apr; 277(15):1181. PubMed ID: 9103327
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Preserving scientific debate and patient choice: lessons from the Consensus Panel on Mammography Screening. National Institutes of Health.
Woolf SH; Lawrence RS
JAMA; 1997 Dec; 278(23):2105-8. PubMed ID: 9403427
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. The mammography muddle.
Rogers LF
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1997 May; 168(5):1151. PubMed ID: 9129402
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. The controversy of mammography screening.
Kopans DB
Adm Radiol; 1995 Jan; 14(1):13-24. PubMed ID: 10141106
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Screening mammography in women 40 to 49 years of age.
Lisby MD
Am Fam Physician; 2004 Nov; 70(9):1750-2. PubMed ID: 15554494
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Screening mammography and the "r" word.
Truog RD
N Engl J Med; 2009 Dec; 361(26):2501-3. PubMed ID: 19940292
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Breast cancer screening policy.
Cox B
N Z Med J; 1998 Nov; 111(1078):459. PubMed ID: 9891567
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Breast cancer screening guidelines.
Smith RA
Womens Health Issues; 1992; 2(4):212-7; discussion 217-9. PubMed ID: 1486285
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
