Literature DB >> 7866111

What should be done about interval breast cancers?

S Field, M J Michell, M G Wallis, A R Wilson.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh：

Year:  1995        PMID： 7866111      PMCID： PMC2548611          DOI： 10.1136/bmj.310.6974.203

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


× No keyword cloud information.
  13 in total

Review 1.  One-view versus two-view mammography in baseline screening for breast cancer: a review.

Authors:  J A van Dijck; A L Verbeek; J H Hendriks; R Holland
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Mammographic film density and detection of small breast cancers.

Authors:  K C Young; M G Wallis; M L Ramsdale
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 2.350

3.  Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms.

Authors:  J G Elmore; C K Wells; C H Lee; D H Howard; A R Feinstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1994-12-01       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Breast cancer detection: one versus two views.

Authors:  L W Bassett; D H Bunnell; R Jahanshahi; R H Gold; R D Arndt; J Linsman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  The efficacy of double reading mammograms in breast screening.

Authors:  E D Anderson; B B Muir; J S Walsh; A E Kirkpatrick
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 2.350

6.  Analysis of interval breast carcinomas in a randomized screening trial in Stockholm.

Authors:  J Frisell; G Eklund; L Hellström; A Somell
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 4.872

7.  Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  L Tabàr; G Fagerberg; S W Duffy; N E Day; A Gad; O Gröntoft
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  1992-01       Impact factor: 2.303

8.  Number of projections in mammography: influence on detection of breast disease.

Authors:  I Andersson; J Hildell; A Mühlow; H Pettersson
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1978-02       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program.

Authors:  E L Thurfjell; K A Lernevall; A A Taube
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  The occurrence of interval cancers in the Nijmegen screening programme.

Authors:  P H Peeters; A L Verbeek; J H Hendriks; R Holland; M Mravunac; G P Vooijs
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1989-06       Impact factor: 7.640
View more
  8 in total

1.  NHS breast screening programme: is the high incidence of interval cancers inevitable?

Authors:  D Asbury; C R Boggis; D Sheals; A G Threlfall; C B Woodman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-11-30

2.  A comparative audit of prevalent, incident and interval cancers in the Avon breast screening programme.

Authors:  P A Sylvester; M N Vipond; E Kutt; J D Davies; A J Webb; J R Farndon
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 1.891

3.  Screening for the breast cancer. Two views mean twice the dose of radiation.

Authors:  R Blomfield
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-04-15

4.  Screening for breast cancer. Diagnostic performance of radiographers can be improved.

Authors:  C F Loughran
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-04-15

5.  Screening for breast cancer. Technicians could be trained to interpret screening mammograms.

Authors:  M Robertson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-04-15

6.  Screening for breast cancer. Informed consent may increase non-attendance rate.

Authors:  M Baum
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-04-15

7.  Screening for breast cancer. Recommendations are costly and short sighted.

Authors:  H Thornton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-04-15

8.  Screening for breast cancer. Maximise compliance as well as radiological sensitivity.

Authors:  T J Anderson; F E Alexander; A E Kirkpatrick
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-04-15
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.