Two view mammography at incident screens: Cost effectiveness analysis of policy options

British Medical Journal

Volumn 319, Issue 7217, 1999, Pages 1097-1102

  Johnston, Katharine ^a   Brown, Jackie ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST;

EID: 0033598561     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.319.7217.1097     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Forrest APM. Breast cancer screening report to the health ministers of England, Wales and Scotland. London: HMSO, 1986.
2. NHS Executive. Quality in the national health service breast screening programme. Leeds:Quarry House, 1995.
3. Wald NJ, Murphy P, Major P, Townsend J, Frost C. UKCCCR multicentre randomised controlled trial of one and two view mammography in breast cancer screening. BMJ 1995;311:1189-96.
4. Blanks RG, Moss SM, Wallis MG. A comparison of cancer detection rates achieved by breast cancer screening programmes by number of readers, for one-view and two-view mammography: results from the UK National Health Service breast screening programme. J Med Screen 1998;5:195-201.
5. Johnston K, Gerard K, Morton A, Brown J. NHS costs for the breast screening frequency and age trials. Uxbridge: Brunel University, 1996. (Health Economics Research Group Discussion Paper.)
6. Brown J, Bryan S, Warren R. Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of double reading versus single reading of mammograms. BMJ 1996;312:809-12.
7. Warren RML, Duffy SW. Comparison of single reading with double reading of mammograms, and change in effectiveness with experience. Br J Radiol 1995;68:958-62.
8. Bryan S, Brown J, Warren R. Mammography screening: an incremental cost effectiveness analysis of two-view versus one-view procedures in London. J Epidemiol Community Health 1995;49:70-8.
9. Blanks RG, Day NE, Moss SM. Monitoring the performance of breast screening programmes: use of indirect standardisation in evaluating the invasive cancer detection ratio J Med Screen 1996;32:79-81.
10. Karlsson G, Johannesson M. The decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. PharmacoEconomics 1996;9:113-120.
11. Briggs A, Sculpher M, Buxton M. Uncertainty in the economic evaluation of health care technologies: the role of sensitivity analysis. Health Economics 1994;3:95-104.
12. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky AS, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J 1992;146:473-81.