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 *

385 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9934650)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Efficiency of cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening: two versus one view mammography.
    Blanks RG; Given-Wilson RM; Moss SM
    J Med Screen; 1998; 5(3):141-5. PubMed ID: 9795875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Results from 10 years of breast screening in Wales.
    Fielder H; Rogers C; Gower-Thomas K; Monypenny I; Dallimore N; Brook D; Greening S
    J Med Screen; 2001; 8(1):21-3. PubMed ID: 11373845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. The effect of changing from one to two views at incident (subsequent) screens in the NHS breast screening programme in England: impact on cancer detection and recall rates.
    Blanks RG; Bennett RL; Patnick J; Cush S; Davison C; Moss SM
    Clin Radiol; 2005 Jun; 60(6):674-80. PubMed ID: 16038694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Results from the NHS breast screening programme 1990-1993.
    Moss SM; Michel M; Patnick J; Johns L; Blanks R; Chamberlain J
    J Med Screen; 1995; 2(4):186-90. PubMed ID: 8719146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Invasive breast cancers detected by screening mammography: a detailed comparison of computer-aided detection-assisted single reading and double reading.
    Cawson JN; Nickson C; Amos A; Hill G; Whan AB; Kavanagh AM
    J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2009 Oct; 53(5):442-9. PubMed ID: 19788479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Can the NHS Breast Screening Programme afford not to double read screening mammograms?
    Liston JC; Dall BJ
    Clin Radiol; 2003 Jun; 58(6):474-7. PubMed ID: 12788317
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Single reading with computer-aided detection performed by selected radiologists in a breast cancer screening program.
    Bargalló X; Santamaría G; Del Amo M; Arguis P; Ríos J; Grau J; Burrel M; Cores E; Velasco M
    Eur J Radiol; 2014 Nov; 83(11):2019-23. PubMed ID: 25193778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Double versus single reading of mammograms in a breast cancer screening programme: a cost-consequence analysis.
    Posso MC; Puig T; Quintana MJ; Solà-Roca J; Bonfill X
    Eur Radiol; 2016 Sep; 26(9):3262-71. PubMed ID: 26747264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 20.