Búsqueda | Biblioteca Virtual en Salud

1.

Opportunity cost of annual screening mammography.

Keen, John D.

Cancer ; 124(6): 1297-1298, 2018 03 15.

Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29266218

2.

Given Overdiagnosis, Recall Reduction Should Trump DCIS Detection.

Keen, John D; Jørgensen, Karsten J.

Radiology ; 284(2): 608-610, 2017 08.

Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28723298

3.

Relative Utility or Marginal Positive Predictive Values Accounting for Overdiagnosis Should Guide Optimal Recall Rates.

Keen, John D; Keen, James E.

AJR Am J Roentgenol ; 209(2): W112-W113, 2017 08.

Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28731816

4.

Aggregate cost of mammography screening in the United States.

Keen, John D.

Ann Intern Med ; 161(4): 304, 2014 Aug 19.

Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25133365

5.

Supporting informed choice before screening mammography is the only ethical option.

Keen, John D.

AJR Am J Roentgenol ; 203(4): W460, 2014 Oct.

Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25247983

6.

What is the point: will screening mammography save my life?

Keen, John D; Keen, James E.

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak ; 9: 18, 2009 Apr 02.

Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19341448

7.

Case 15-2010: Mammography in elderly women.

Keen, John D.

N Engl J Med ; 363(13): 1288; author reply 1288, 2010 09 23.

Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20860516

8.

Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography.

Keen, John D.

Ann Intern Med ; 156(3): 249-50; author reply 251, 2012 Feb 07.

Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22312149

9.

How does age affect baseline screening mammography performance measures? A decision model.

Keen, John D; Keen, James E.

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak ; 8: 40, 2008 Sep 21.

Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18803871

10.

Utilization of Computer-Aided Detection for Digital Screening Mammography in the United States, 2008 to 2016.

Keen, John D; Keen, Joanna M; Keen, James E.

J Am Coll Radiol ; 15(1 Pt A): 44-48, 2018 01.

Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28993109

11.

The Two-County breast screening trial cannot provide a reliable estimate of the effect of breast cancer screening.

Jørgensen, Karsten Juhl; Keen, John D; Zahl, Per-Henrik; Gøtzsche, Peter C.

Radiology ; 262(2): 729-30; author reply 730-1, 2012 Feb.

Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22282190

12.

Point/Counterpoint: recent data show that mammographic screening of asymptomatic women is effective and essential.

Javitt, Marcia C; Hendrick, R Edward; Keen, John D; Jorgensen, Karsten Juhl; Orton, Colin G.

Med Phys ; 39(7): 4047-50, 2012 Jul.

Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22830737

13.

Analysis of health benefits and cost-effectiveness of mammography for breast cancer.

Keen, John D.

Ann Intern Med ; 155(8): 566; author reply 566-7, 2011 Oct 18.

Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22007057

14.

Is mammographic screening justifiable considering its substantial overdiagnosis rate and minor effect on mortality?

Jørgensen, Karsten Juhl; Keen, John D; Gøtzsche, Peter C.

Radiology ; 260(3): 621-7, 2011 Sep.

Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21846758

15.

Is this appropriate: will CT take my life?

Keen, John D.

AJR Am J Roentgenol ; 196(2): W217; author reply W218, 2011 Feb.

Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21257868

16.

Where is the evidence: does computer-aided overdiagnosis save lives?

Keen, John D.

Radiology ; 254(3): 989, 2010 Mar.

Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20177111

17.

Four Principles to Consider Before Advising Women on Screening Mammography.

Keen, John D; Jørgensen, Karsten J.

J Womens Health (Larchmt) ; 24(11): 867-74, 2015 Nov.

Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26496048

18.

Digital and film mammography.

Keen, John D.

N Engl J Med ; 354(7): 765-7; author reply 765-7, 2006 Feb 16.

Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16482674

19.

Nonmammographic screening for breast cancer.

Keen, John D.

JAMA ; 300(13): 1515-6; author reply 1516-7, 2008 Oct 01.

Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18827205

20.

Continued Avoidance of USPSTF Guidelines for Screening Mammography.

Bleyer, Archie; Keen, John D.

J Womens Health (Larchmt) ; 27(7): 850-853, 2018 07.

Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30020846

Biblioteca Virtual en Salud

Hipertensión

Su selección (0)

Formato de exportación:

Exportar:

Opportunity cost of annual screening mammography.

Given Overdiagnosis, Recall Reduction Should Trump DCIS Detection.

Relative Utility or Marginal Positive Predictive Values Accounting for Overdiagnosis Should Guide Optimal Recall Rates.

Aggregate cost of mammography screening in the United States.

Supporting informed choice before screening mammography is the only ethical option.

What is the point: will screening mammography save my life?

Case 15-2010: Mammography in elderly women.

Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography.

How does age affect baseline screening mammography performance measures? A decision model.

Utilization of Computer-Aided Detection for Digital Screening Mammography in the United States, 2008 to 2016.

The Two-County breast screening trial cannot provide a reliable estimate of the effect of breast cancer screening.

Point/Counterpoint: recent data show that mammographic screening of asymptomatic women is effective and essential.

Analysis of health benefits and cost-effectiveness of mammography for breast cancer.

Is mammographic screening justifiable considering its substantial overdiagnosis rate and minor effect on mortality?

Is this appropriate: will CT take my life?

Where is the evidence: does computer-aided overdiagnosis save lives?

Four Principles to Consider Before Advising Women on Screening Mammography.

Digital and film mammography.

Nonmammographic screening for breast cancer.

Continued Avoidance of USPSTF Guidelines for Screening Mammography.