Literature DB >> 10818006

Screening for breast and cervical cancer as a common cause for litigation. A false negative result may be one of an irreducible minimum of errors.

R M Wilson.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10818006      PMCID: PMC1118031          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.320.7246.1352

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


× No keyword cloud information.
  6 in total

1.  Screening versus diagnostic mammography.

Authors:  L Berlin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Recalling women for further investigation of breast screening: women's experiences at the clinic and afterwards.

Authors:  G Ong; J Austoker
Journal:  J Public Health Med       Date:  1997-03

3.  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.

Authors:  R G Blanks; M G Wallis; S M Moss
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 2.136

4.  Do non-specific minimal signs in a biennial mammographic breast cancer screening programme need further diagnostic assessment?

Authors:  R M Maes; D J Dronkers; J H Hendriks; M A Thijssen; H W Nab
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Results from the NHS breast screening programme 1990-1993.

Authors:  S M Moss; M Michel; J Patnick; L Johns; R Blanks; J Chamberlain
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 2.136

6.  Do women who undergo further investigation for breast screening suffer adverse psychological consequences? A multi-centre follow-up study comparing different breast screening result groups five months after their last breast screening appointment.

Authors:  J Brett; J Austoker; G Ong
Journal:  J Public Health Med       Date:  1998-12
  6 in total
  5 in total

1.  Screening and litigation. The rate of interval cancers is too high.

Authors:  J R Benson; A D Purushotham; R Warren
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-09-23

2.  A measure of informed choice.

Authors:  T M Marteau; E Dormandy; S Michie
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  Practitioner's role in implementing varying guidelines.

Authors:  Manish P Ranpara
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 3.275

4.  Frequency of risk factors for cervical cancer among women in fertile age.

Authors:  Amela Dzubur; Ajnija Omanić; Alen Dzubur; Sanja Alispahić
Journal:  Bosn J Basic Med Sci       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 3.363

5.  The role of effective communication to enhance participation in screening mammography: a New Zealand case.

Authors:  Margaret A Brunton
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2009-02-24       Impact factor: 3.390

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.