Literature DB >> 16513713

Content of invitations for publicly funded screening mammography.

Karsten Juhl Jørgensen1, Peter C Gøtzsche.   

Abstract

Mesh：

Year:  2006        PMID： 16513713      PMCID： PMC1388137          DOI： 10.1136/bmj.332.7540.538

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


× No keyword cloud information.
  21 in total

1.  False-positive findings in mammography screening induces short-term distress - breast cancer-specific concern prevails longer.

Authors:  A R Aro; S Pilvikki Absetz; T M van Elderen; E van der Ploeg; L J van der Kamp
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 9.162

2.  Presentation on websites of possible benefits and harms from screening for breast cancer: cross sectional study.

Authors:  Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-01-17

3.  US women's attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey.

Authors:  L M Schwartz; S Woloshin; H C Sox; B Fischhoff; H G Welch
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-06-17

Review 4.  Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials.

Authors:  Lennarth Nyström; Ingvar Andersson; Nils Bjurstam; Jan Frisell; Bo Nordenskjöld; Lars Erik Rutqvist
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-03-16       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography.

Authors:  O Olsen; P C Gøtzsche
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2001-10-20       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Women's perception of the benefits of mammography screening: population-based survey in four countries.

Authors:  Gianfranco Domenighetti; Barbara D'Avanzo; Matthias Egger; Franco Berrino; Thomas Perneger; Paola Mosconi; Marcel Zwahlen
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 7.196

7.  Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Linda L Humphrey; Mark Helfand; Benjamin K S Chan; Steven H Woolf
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-03       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Philip W Chu; Diana L Miglioretti; Edward A Sickles; Roger Blanks; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Janet K Bobo; Nancy C Lee; Matthew G Wallis; Julietta Patnick; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-10-22       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States.

Authors:  Lisa M Schwartz; Steven Woloshin; Floyd J Fowler; H Gilbert Welch
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-01-07       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 10.  Regular self-examination or clinical examination for early detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  J P Kösters; P C Gøtzsche
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2003
View more
  43 in total

1.  Ramifications of screening for breast cancer: consent for screening.

Authors:  Michael Baum
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-03-25

2.  Ramifications of screening for breast cancer: more debate and better information still needed.

Authors:  Hazel Thornton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2006-03-25

Review 3.  The breast screening programme and misinforming the public.

Authors:  Peter C Gøtzsche; Karsten Juhl Jørgensen
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: time to tackle an underappreciated harm.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2012-04-03       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Do invitations for cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable informed choice? A cross-sectional study of invitations for publicly funded cervical screening.

Authors:  Sie Karen Kolthoff; Mie Sara Hestbech; Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; John Brodersen
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2016-04-26       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Improving public health information for patients: shared decision making and influenza vaccination.

Authors:  Benoit V Tudrej; Michaela B Rehman; Rémy Boussageon
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  Patients' expectations of screening and preventive treatments.

Authors:  Ben Hudson; Abby Zarifeh; Lorraine Young; J Elisabeth Wells
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2012 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.166

8.  Overdiagnosis in organised mammography screening in Denmark. A comparative study.

Authors:  Karsten J Jørgensen; Per-Henrik Zahl; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2009-12-22       Impact factor: 2.809

9.  Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): randomised trial.

Authors:  Theresa M Marteau; Eleanor Mann; A Toby Prevost; Joana C Vasconcelos; Ian Kellar; Simon Sanderson; Michael Parker; Simon Griffin; Stephen Sutton; Ann Louise Kinmonth
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-05-13

10.  Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): trial protocol.

Authors:  Eleanor Mann; A Toby Prevost; Simon Griffin; Ian Kellar; Stephen Sutton; Michael Parker; Simon Sanderson; Ann Louise Kinmonth; Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2009-02-20       Impact factor: 3.295
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.