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 *

132 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9923961)

  • 1. Does breast cancer screening depend on a wobbly hypothesis?
    Clowes J; Varlow J
    J Public Health Med; 1998 Dec; 20(4):487-9. PubMed ID: 9923961
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Optimal recall rates following mammography.
    Goodson WH
    JAMA; 2004 Feb; 291(7):821-2; author reply 822. PubMed ID: 14970059
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effects of estrogen on screening mammography: another complexity.
    Black WC; Fletcher SW
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 1996 May; 88(10):627-8. PubMed ID: 8627634
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. For debate. Does breast cancer screening depend on a wobbly hypothesis?
    Watmough DJ; Bhargava S; Memon A; Syed F; Roy S; Sharma P
    J Public Health Med; 1997 Dec; 19(4):375-9. PubMed ID: 9467140
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Mammography in younger women: the dilemma of diminishing returns.
    Calonge N
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2010 May; 102(10):668-9. PubMed ID: 20439837
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom.
    Smith-Bindman R; Chu PW; Miglioretti DL; Sickles EA; Blanks R; Ballard-Barbash R; Bobo JK; Lee NC; Wallis MG; Patnick J; Kerlikowske K
    JAMA; 2003 Oct; 290(16):2129-37. PubMed ID: 14570948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Breast Cancer Screening.
    Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses
    J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs; 2017; 46(5):797-798. PubMed ID: 28774744
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Who evaluates public health programmes? A review of the NHS Breast Screening Programme.
    Jørgensen KJ; Gøtzsche PC
    J R Soc Med; 2010 Jan; 103(1):14-20. PubMed ID: 20056665
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Comparing the performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK.
    Smith-Bindman R; Ballard-Barbash R; Miglioretti DL; Patnick J; Kerlikowske K
    J Med Screen; 2005; 12(1):50-4. PubMed ID: 15814020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Breast cancer mortality declining but screening among subpopulations lags.
    Skaer TL; Robison LM; Sclar DA; Harding GH
    Am J Public Health; 1998 Feb; 88(2):307-8. PubMed ID: 9491032
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. NHS performance tables for breast screening.
    Shah S; Roche T; Henderson G
    Lancet; 1998 Feb; 351(9101):529. PubMed ID: 9482484
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Uptake of breast screening. May be influenced by practice specific factors.
    Hollyoak V
    BMJ; 1995 Apr; 310(6985):1004. PubMed ID: 7727998
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Danish Quality Database for Mammography Screening].
    Vejborg I; Mikkelsen EM; Schwartz W; Bak M; Lernevall A; Borg Mogensen N; Garne JP
    Ugeskr Laeger; 2012 Oct; 174(42):2533. PubMed ID: 23079436
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Evidence-based screening in the United Kingdom.
    Gray JA
    Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2001; 17(3):400-8. PubMed ID: 11495383
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Information on mammography screening--from deception to insight].
    Mühlhauser I; Höldke B
    Radiologe; 2002 Apr; 42(4):299-304. PubMed ID: 12063738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Biases in estimates of overdetection due to mammography screening.
    Zahl PH; Jørgensen KJ; Maehlen J; Gøtzsche PC
    Lancet Oncol; 2008 Mar; 9(3):199-201; author reply 201-2. PubMed ID: 18308246
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Mammography screening is not as good as we hoped.
    Jørgensen KJ
    Maturitas; 2010 Jan; 65(1):1-2. PubMed ID: 19939593
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Low participation rate in breast cancer prevention initial screening: possible contributing factors].
    Ordoñana Martín JR; Pérez Riquelme F; González Javier F; Gómez Amor J
    Med Clin (Barc); 2004 Apr; 122(14):555-6. PubMed ID: 15117651
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Estimation of natural history parameters of breast cancer based on non-randomized organized screening data: subsidiary analysis of effects of inter-screening interval, sensitivity, and attendance rate on reduction of advanced cancer.
    Wu JC; Hakama M; Anttila A; Yen AM; Malila N; Sarkeala T; Auvinen A; Chiu SY; Chen HH
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2010 Jul; 122(2):553-66. PubMed ID: 20054645
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer.
    Kerlikowske K; Grady D; Barclay J; Sickles EA; Eaton A; Ernster V
    JAMA; 1993 Nov; 270(20):2444-50. PubMed ID: 8230621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.