Format
Sort by

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 141

1.

Breast and cervical cancer screening interventions: an assessment of the literature.

Meissner HI, Breen N, Coyne C, Legler JM, Green DT, Edwards BK.

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1998 Oct;7(10):951-61. Review.

2.

The impact of screening on future health-promoting behaviours and health beliefs: a systematic review.

Bankhead CR, Brett J, Bukach C, Webster P, Stewart-Brown S, Munafo M, Austoker J.

Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(42):1-92. Review.

3.

Trial design and reporting standards for intra-arterial cerebral thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke.

Higashida RT, Furlan AJ, Roberts H, Tomsick T, Connors B, Barr J, Dillon W, Warach S, Broderick J, Tilley B, Sacks D; Technology Assessment Committee of the American Society of Interventional and Therapeutic Neuroradiology; Technology Assessment Committee of the Society of Interventional Radiology.

Stroke. 2003 Aug;34(8):e109-37. Epub 2003 Jul 17. Erratum in: Stroke. 2003 Nov;34(11):2774.

4.

A critical synopsis of the diagnostic and screening radiology outcomes literature.

Blackmore CC, Black WC, Jarvik JG, Langlotz CP.

Acad Radiol. 1999 Jan;6 Suppl 1:S8-18.

PMID:
9891161
5.

A systematic review of comparisons of effect sizes derived from randomised and non-randomised studies.

MacLehose RR, Reeves BC, Harvey IM, Sheldon TA, Russell IT, Black AM.

Health Technol Assess. 2000;4(34):1-154. Review.

6.

The measurement and monitoring of surgical adverse events.

Bruce J, Russell EM, Mollison J, Krukowski ZH.

Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(22):1-194. Review.

7.

Breast and cervical cancer screening practices and inventions among Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese Americans.

Lee-Lin F, Menon U.

Oncol Nurs Forum. 2005 Sep 1;32(5):995-1003. Review.

PMID:
16136197
8.

Effectiveness of interventions to improve follow-up after abnormal cervical cancer screening.

Yabroff KR, Kerner JF, Mandelblatt JS.

Prev Med. 2000 Oct;31(4):429-39.

PMID:
11006069
10.

Comparison of conference abstracts and presentations with full-text articles in the health technology assessments of rapidly evolving technologies.

Dundar Y, Dodd S, Dickson R, Walley T, Haycox A, Williamson PR.

Health Technol Assess. 2006 Feb;10(5):iii-iv, ix-145. Review.

11.

Cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to select women with breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy.

Williams C, Brunskill S, Altman D, Briggs A, Campbell H, Clarke M, Glanville J, Gray A, Harris A, Johnston K, Lodge M.

Health Technol Assess. 2006 Sep;10(34):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-204. Review.

12.

The educational effects of portfolios on undergraduate student learning: a Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review. BEME Guide No. 11.

Buckley S, Coleman J, Davison I, Khan KS, Zamora J, Malick S, Morley D, Pollard D, Ashcroft T, Popovic C, Sayers J.

Med Teach. 2009 Apr;31(4):282-98. doi: 10.1080/01421590902889897. Review.

PMID:
19404891
13.

Screening for speech and language delay in preschool children: systematic evidence review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Nelson HD, Nygren P, Walker M, Panoscha R.

Pediatrics. 2006 Feb;117(2):e298-319. Review. Erratum in: Pediatrics. 2006 Jun;117(6):2336-7.

PMID:
16452337
14.

Hispanic women's breast and cervical cancer knowledge, attitudes, and screening behaviors.

Ramirez AG, Suarez L, Laufman L, Barroso C, Chalela P.

Am J Health Promot. 2000 May-Jun;14(5):292-300.

PMID:
11009855
15.

Health-related quality of life, satisfaction, and economic outcome measures in studies of prostate cancer screening and treatment, 1990-2000.

McNaughton-Collins M, Walker-Corkery E, Barry MJ.

J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2004;(33):78-101. Review.

PMID:
15504921
16.

A review of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening interventions in older women.

Bowie JV, Curbow BA, Garza MA, Dreyling EK, Benz Scott LA, McDonnell KA.

Cancer Control. 2005 Nov;12 Suppl 2:58-69. Review.

17.

Primary care practice and facility quality orientation: influence on breast and cervical cancer screening rates.

Goldzweig CL, Parkerton PH, Washington DL, Lanto AB, Yano EM.

Am J Manag Care. 2004 Apr;10(4):265-72.

18.

Contextual analysis of breast and cervical cancer screening and factors associated with health care access among United States women, 2002.

Coughlin SS, Leadbetter S, Richards T, Sabatino SA.

Soc Sci Med. 2008 Jan;66(2):260-75. Epub 2007 Nov 19.

PMID:
18022299
19.

Is the promise of cancer-screening programs being compromised? Quality of follow-up care after abnormal screening results.

Yabroff KR, Washington KS, Leader A, Neilson E, Mandelblatt J.

Med Care Res Rev. 2003 Sep;60(3):294-331. Review.

PMID:
12971231
20.

Community-based cancer screening for underserved women: design and baseline findings from the Breast and Cervical Cancer Intervention Study.

Hiatt RA, Pasick RJ, Stewart S, Bloom J, Davis P, Gardiner P, Johnston M, Luce J, Schorr K, Brunner W, Stroud F.

Prev Med. 2001 Sep;33(3):190-203.

PMID:
11522160
Items per page

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk