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.
Pubmed for Handhelds
PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS
Journal Abstract Search
876 related items for PubMed ID: 21727289
1. Personalizing mammography by breast density and other risk factors for breast cancer: analysis of health benefits and cost-effectiveness. Schousboe JT, Kerlikowske K, Loh A, Cummings SR. Ann Intern Med; 2011 Jul 05; 155(1):10-20. PubMed ID: 21727289 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts. Sprague BL, Stout NK, Schechter C, van Ravesteyn NT, Cevik M, Alagoz O, Lee CI, van den Broek JJ, Miglioretti DL, Mandelblatt JS, de Koning HJ, Kerlikowske K, Lehman CD, Tosteson AN. Ann Intern Med; 2015 Feb 03; 162(3):157-66. PubMed ID: 25486550 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Incorporating Baseline Breast Density When Screening Women at Average Risk for Breast Cancer : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Shih YT, Dong W, Xu Y, Etzioni R, Shen Y. Ann Intern Med; 2021 May 03; 174(5):602-612. PubMed ID: 33556275 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Mammography Beyond Age 75 Years : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Schousboe JT, Sprague BL, Abraham L, O'Meara ES, Onega T, Advani S, Henderson LM, Wernli KJ, Zhang D, Miglioretti DL, Braithwaite D, Kerlikowske K. Ann Intern Med; 2022 Jan 03; 175(1):11-19. PubMed ID: 34807717 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Factors Associated With Rates of False-Positive and False-Negative Results From Digital Mammography Screening: An Analysis of Registry Data. Nelson HD, O'Meara ES, Kerlikowske K, Balch S, Miglioretti D. Ann Intern Med; 2016 Feb 16; 164(4):226-35. PubMed ID: 26756902 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies. Mandelblatt JS, Stout NK, Schechter CB, van den Broek JJ, Miglioretti DL, Krapcho M, Trentham-Dietz A, Munoz D, Lee SJ, Berry DA, van Ravesteyn NT, Alagoz O, Kerlikowske K, Tosteson AN, Near AM, Hoeffken A, Chang Y, Heijnsdijk EA, Chisholm G, Huang X, Huang H, Ergun MA, Gangnon R, Sprague BL, Plevritis S, Feuer E, de Koning HJ, Cronin KA. Ann Intern Med; 2016 Feb 16; 164(4):215-25. PubMed ID: 26756606 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Cost-effectiveness of screening women with familial risk for breast cancer with magnetic resonance imaging. Saadatmand S, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Rutgers EJ, Hoogerbrugge N, Oosterwijk JC, Tollenaar RA, Hooning M, Loo CE, Obdeijn IM, Heijnsdijk EA, de Koning HJ. J Natl Cancer Inst; 2013 Sep 04; 105(17):1314-21. PubMed ID: 23940285 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Clinical Benefits, Harms, and Cost-Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening for Survivors of Childhood Cancer Treated With Chest Radiation : A Comparative Modeling Study. Yeh JM, Lowry KP, Schechter CB, Diller LR, Alagoz O, Armstrong GT, Hampton JM, Leisenring W, Liu Q, Mandelblatt JS, Miglioretti DL, Moskowitz CS, Oeffinger KC, Trentham-Dietz A, Stout NK. Ann Intern Med; 2020 Sep 01; 173(5):331-341. PubMed ID: 32628531 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Tosteson AN, Stout NK, Fryback DG, Acharyya S, Herman BA, Hannah LG, Pisano ED, DMIST Investigators. Ann Intern Med; 2008 Jan 01; 148(1):1-10. PubMed ID: 18166758 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Cost-effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening With Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Women at Familial Risk. Geuzinge HA, Obdeijn IM, Rutgers EJT, Saadatmand S, Mann RM, Oosterwijk JC, Tollenaar RAEM, de Roy van Zuidewijn DBW, Lobbes MBI, van 't Riet M, Hooning MJ, Ausems MGEM, Loo CE, Wesseling J, Luiten EJT, Zonderland HM, Verhoef C, Heijnsdijk EAM, Tilanus-Linthorst MMA, de Koning HJ, Familial MRI Screening (FaMRIsc) Study group. JAMA Oncol; 2020 Sep 01; 6(9):1381-1389. PubMed ID: 32729887 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Cost-effectiveness of alternating magnetic resonance imaging and digital mammography screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers. Cott Chubiz JE, Lee JM, Gilmore ME, Kong CY, Lowry KP, Halpern EF, McMahon PM, Ryan PD, Gazelle GS. Cancer; 2013 Mar 15; 119(6):1266-76. PubMed ID: 23184400 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years: a comparative modeling study of risk. van Ravesteyn NT, Miglioretti DL, Stout NK, Lee SJ, Schechter CB, Buist DS, Huang H, Heijnsdijk EA, Trentham-Dietz A, Alagoz O, Near AM, Kerlikowske K, Nelson HD, Mandelblatt JS, de Koning HJ. Ann Intern Med; 2012 May 01; 156(9):609-17. PubMed ID: 22547470 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Cost-effectiveness of annual versus biennial screening mammography for women with high mammographic breast density. Pataky R, Ismail Z, Coldman AJ, Elwood M, Gelmon K, Hedden L, Hislop G, Kan L, McCoy B, Olivotto IA, Peacock S. J Med Screen; 2014 Dec 01; 21(4):180-8. PubMed ID: 25186116 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Radiation-Induced Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality From Digital Mammography Screening: A Modeling Study. Miglioretti DL, Lange J, van den Broek JJ, Lee CI, van Ravesteyn NT, Ritley D, Kerlikowske K, Fenton JJ, Melnikow J, de Koning HJ, Hubbard RA. Ann Intern Med; 2016 Feb 16; 164(4):205-14. PubMed ID: 26756460 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]