Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography.
about
Risk-reducing medication for primary breast cancer: a network meta-analysisBreast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society.Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?Cancer Models and Real-world Data: Better Together.Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts.Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts.Breast Tumor Prognostic Characteristics and Biennial vs Annual Mammography, Age, and Menopausal Status.Clinical outcomes of modelling mammography screening strategies.Modelling mammography screening for breast cancer in the Canadian context: Modification and testing of a microsimulation model.Total cost-effectiveness of mammography screening strategiesTailoring Breast Cancer Screening Intervals by Breast Density and Risk for Women Aged 50 Years or Older: Collaborative Modeling of Screening Outcomes.Improved Screening Mammogram Workflow by Maximizing PACS Streamlining Capabilities in an Academic Breast Center.Benefits and harms of breast cancer screening with mammography in women aged 40-49 years: A systematic review.Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography screening before the age of 50 in The Netherlands.Utility of mammography for chronic kidney disease patients undergoing kidney transplant evaluation.Simulation modeling for stratified breast cancer screening - a systematic review of cost and quality of life assumptions.Cost Effectiveness of Gene Expression Profile Testing in Community Practice.Comparative effectiveness of incorporating a hypothetical DCIS prognostic marker into breast cancer screening.Association of Screening and Treatment With Breast Cancer Mortality by Molecular Subtype in US Women, 2000-2012.Low-dose CT for lung cancer screening: opportunities and challenges.Evaluation of nipple aspirate fluid as a diagnostic tool for early detection of breast cancer.Opportunity cost of annual screening mammography.Cost-effectiveness of mammography from a publicly funded health care system perspective.A simple aptamer-functionalized gold nanorods based biosensor for the sensitive detection of MCF-7 breast cancer cells.Comparing CISNET Breast Cancer Models Using the Maximum Clinical Incidence Reduction Methodology.The University of Wisconsin Breast Cancer Epidemiology Simulation Model: An Update.Simulating the Impact of Risk-Based Screening and Treatment on Breast Cancer Outcomes with MISCAN-Fadia.The Dana-Farber CISNET Model for Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: An Update.Principles of Cancer Screening.Amyloid positron emission tomography candidates may focus more on benefits than risks of results disclosureDose-compatible grating-based phase-contrast mammography on mastectomy specimens using a compact synchrotron source
P2860
Q24185817-C9C07907-0B10-4ED8-BB3F-59E42B763AF0Q27347760-A53AB7B4-9A0C-4364-BCAC-07E0C74CF546Q30250289-1C16F5C3-C7DC-4A69-A281-731EC9EDB4EFQ31018210-DCE2712E-30DF-4031-8335-EAA1D064D59BQ35039764-5C5FB8C9-1DB9-40A8-811D-376CCE441A9BQ35683407-43446236-08C2-4A46-88E3-0B05F7C1E76AQ36277707-1DE9D21A-2159-4814-AD6F-B8B1551FD0B5Q36908143-3C1FD150-448D-49E5-977D-69B347B2486EQ36912485-1A0B751E-89AF-409B-A1BC-0AC84F2982D0Q36972762-D001B06C-58B2-4508-B295-ECA85D5D0F15Q37444608-75824689-12DE-4EF7-ADFE-F37046C91E49Q39264224-002AD863-3398-4B54-B28A-EA49BF0EAC95Q39329143-EFFE3FC1-CB8B-46DA-A15E-DB2C611008A9Q40274165-41EA31E8-94B7-4358-B933-51ED27204EF3Q46269215-60DD5385-0EA4-4AD4-BEB8-321BBCE999C3Q47094586-AFF87A75-F736-44E6-B7BD-3A06BD554407Q47198620-F1DA5902-F65B-48A7-A014-160CC1805E1DQ47304201-8C20B4EC-B387-42EF-8D87-D7BEFA30EE2AQ47562495-DEEA5B5E-499A-4E59-92AA-8B552CE0CD17Q47794272-6B26F79C-05A1-4443-97FD-5172C658736CQ48222816-5A4BBC65-D488-4A0B-9109-307529298D3CQ48369270-C80DBCDD-0537-4A6D-8369-DFC8C5D42838Q50027418-187759D6-F079-4A1D-AD42-CF4EB63B4F27Q50879839-72E64C6B-FC05-4E06-8522-059045D8C043Q51738440-C3E52DBD-6A25-4BD1-A8D2-9FB4D7AA5753Q52648598-6667130F-6B60-4A5A-B51D-0F87EA855B76Q52648599-3D5080E0-C2F2-4891-A3D7-4A4A1E9C5B3FQ52648600-96F4781A-578B-4253-B3EB-F1A9BC6CDE28Q54535253-59DFA55A-A54A-4364-912C-2F699FD6B73CQ56373543-EC432872-173A-4FBF-80B5-6B5A832CFB72Q57794650-24BB9E23-1751-4A87-A16C-EB7A44B4C4DB
P2860
Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography.
description
2014 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2014 թուականի Մայիսին հրատարակուած գիտական յօդուած
@hyw
2014 թվականի մայիսին հրատարակված գիտական հոդված
@hy
2014年の論文
@ja
2014年論文
@yue
2014年論文
@zh-hant
2014年論文
@zh-hk
2014年論文
@zh-mo
2014年論文
@zh-tw
2014年论文
@wuu
name
Benefits, harms, and costs for ...... tation of digital mammography.
@ast
Benefits, harms, and costs for ...... tation of digital mammography.
@en
type
label
Benefits, harms, and costs for ...... tation of digital mammography.
@ast
Benefits, harms, and costs for ...... tation of digital mammography.
@en
prefLabel
Benefits, harms, and costs for ...... tation of digital mammography.
@ast
Benefits, harms, and costs for ...... tation of digital mammography.
@en
P2093
P2860
P356
P1476
Benefits, harms, and costs for ...... ntation of digital mammography
@en
P2093
Amy Trentham-Dietz
Anna N A Tosteson
Clyde B Schechter
Diana L Miglioretti
Diana S M Buist
Donald Berry
Gary Chisholm
Harry J de Koning
Jeanne S Mandelblatt
P2860
P304
P356
10.1093/JNCI/DJU092
P407
P577
2014-05-28T00:00:00Z