Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 450

1.

The cost-effectiveness of screening mammography beyond age 65 years: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Mandelblatt J, Saha S, Teutsch S, Hoerger T, Siu AL, Atkins D, Klein J, Helfand M; Cost Work Group of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Ann Intern Med. 2003 Nov 18;139(10):835-42. Review.

PMID:
14623621
2.

Breast cancer screening policies in developing countries: a cost-effectiveness analysis for India.

Okonkwo QL, Draisma G, der Kinderen A, Brown ML, de Koning HJ.

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Sep 17;100(18):1290-300. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djn292. Epub 2008 Sep 9.

PMID:
18780864
3.

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

Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH.

Ann Intern Med. 2002 Sep 3;137(5 Part 1):347-60.

PMID:
12204020
4.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Pignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T, Mandelblatt J.

Ann Intern Med. 2002 Jul 16;137(2):96-104. Review.

PMID:
12118964
5.
6.

Cost-effectiveness of extending screening mammography guidelines to include women 40 to 49 years of age.

Salzmann P, Kerlikowske K, Phillips K.

Ann Intern Med. 1997 Dec 1;127(11):955-65. Erratum in: Ann Intern Med 1998 May 15;128(10):878.

PMID:
9412300
7.

Summaries for patients. The cost-effectiveness of mammography in women older than 65 years of age.

[No authors listed]

Ann Intern Med. 2003 Nov 18;139(10):I34. No abstract available.

PMID:
14623641
8.

Cost effectiveness of mammography screening for Chinese women.

Wong IO, Kuntz KM, Cowling BJ, Lam CL, Leung GM.

Cancer. 2007 Aug 15;110(4):885-95. Erratum in: Cancer. 2010 Jan 15;116(2):540.

9.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening modalities for breast cancer in Japan with special reference to women aged 40-49 years.

Ohnuki K, Kuriyama S, Shoji N, Nishino Y, Tsuji I, Ohuchi N.

Cancer Sci. 2006 Nov;97(11):1242-7. Epub 2006 Aug 17.

10.

A preliminary model-based assessment of the cost-utility of a screening programme for early age-related macular degeneration.

Karnon J, Czoski-Murray C, Smith K, Brand C, Chakravarthy U, Davis S, Bansback N, Beverley C, Bird A, Harding S, Chisholm I, Yang YC.

Health Technol Assess. 2008 Jun;12(27):iii-iv, ix-124.

11.

A cost utility analysis of mammography screening in Australia.

Hall J, Gerard K, Salkeld G, Richardson J.

Soc Sci Med. 1992 May;34(9):993-1004.

PMID:
1631612
12.

Screening mammography in women 40 to 49 years of age: a systematic review for the American College of Physicians.

Armstrong K, Moye E, Williams S, Berlin JA, Reynolds EE.

Ann Intern Med. 2007 Apr 3;146(7):516-26. Review.

PMID:
17404354
13.

The cost-effectiveness of mammography screening: evidence from a microsimulation model for New Zealand.

Szeto KL, Devlin NJ.

Health Policy. 1996 Nov;38(2):101-15. Review.

PMID:
10160378
14.

Costs of breast cancer and the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening.

Elixhauser A.

Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1991;7(4):604-15. Review.

PMID:
1778705
15.

Breast cancer screening for elderly women with and without comorbid conditions. A decision analysis model.

Mandelblatt JS, Wheat ME, Monane M, Moshief RD, Hollenberg JP, Tang J.

Ann Intern Med. 1992 May 1;116(9):722-30.

PMID:
1558343
16.

What is the most cost-effective population-based cancer screening program for Chinese women?

Woo PP, Kim JJ, Leung GM.

J Clin Oncol. 2007 Feb 20;25(6):617-24.

PMID:
17308266
17.

Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer.

Fletcher SW, Black W, Harris R, Rimer BK, Shapiro S.

J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Oct 20;85(20):1644-56.

PMID:
8105098
18.

Cost-effectiveness of mammographic screening in Australia.

Carter R, Glasziou P, van Oortmarssen G, de Koning H, Stevenson C, Salkeld G, Boer R.

Aust J Public Health. 1993 Mar;17(1):42-50.

PMID:
8357894
19.

Breast cancer screening for women aged 40 to 49 years--what does the evidence mean for New Zealand?

Baker S, Wall M, Bloomfield A.

N Z Med J. 2005 Aug 26;118(1221):U1628. Review.

PMID:
16138166
20.

Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: an updated rapid and systematic review and economic analysis.

Karnon J, Peters J, Platt J, Chilcott J, McGoogan E, Brewer N.

Health Technol Assess. 2004 May;8(20):iii, 1-78. Review.

Supplemental Content

Support Center