Reply to Flawed Assumptions Used to Defend Screening Mammography

Cancer - United States
doi 10.1002/cncr.29020
Full Text
Abstract

Available in full text

Date
Authors
Publisher

Wiley

Related search

Reply to Opportunity Cost of Annual Screening Mammography

Cancer
Cancer ResearchOncology
2017English

Point: Mammography Screening— Sticking to the Science

Current Oncology
Oncology
2015English

Reply to Skoyles: Misplaced Assumptions of Perfect Human Prosociality

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Multidisciplinary
2011English

Flawed Assumptions: Ethical Problems With Proposed Presumed Consent Legislation

American Journal of Transplantation
TransplantationAllergyImmunologyPharmacology
2017English

Authors' Reply To: “Questionable Method for Estimating the Influence of Mammography Screening on Breast Cancer Mortality in the Netherlands”

International Journal of Cancer
Cancer ResearchOncology
2017English

Impact of Extending Screening Mammography to Older Women Information to Support Informed Choices

International Journal of Cancer
Cancer ResearchOncology
2017English

Reply to When Flawed Modeling Justifies Cost-Effectiveness: Making Sense of “Band-Aid” Modeling

Cancer
Cancer ResearchOncology
2018English

Reply to Cost-Effectiveness Calculations of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination in Punjab May Be Flawed

Cancer
Cancer ResearchOncology
2017English

Mammography Screening: How Important Is Cost as a Barrier to Use?

American Journal of Public Health
EnvironmentalPublic HealthOccupational Health
1994English

Amanote Research

Note-taking for researchers

Follow Amanote

© 2024 Amaplex Software S.P.R.L. All rights reserved.

Privacy PolicyRefund Policy