Ramifications of screening for breast cancer: More debate and better information still needed [5]

British Medical Journal

Volumn 332, Issue 7543, 2006, Pages 728-

  Thornton, Hazel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LETTER; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; MASS SCREENING; NOTE; PROGNOSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STANDARD; SWEDEN;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; PROGNOSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; SWEDEN;

EID: 33645500321     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Letter

References (5)

1. Dixon JM. Screening for breast cancer. BMJ 2006;332:499-500. (4 March.)
2. Zackrisson S, Andersson I, Janzon L, Manjer J, Garne JP. Rate of over-diagnosis of breast cancer 15 years after end of Malmö mammographic screening trial: follow-up study. BMJ 2006;332:689-92. (25 March.) doi:10.1136/bmj.38764.572569.7C (published 3 March 2006).
3. Jorgensen KJ, Goetzsche PC. Content of invitations for publicly funded screening mammography. BMJ 2006;332:538-41. (4 March.)
4. Thornton H, Edwards A, Baum M. Women need better information about routine mammography. BMJ 2003;327:101-3.
5. Barratt A, Howard K, Irwig L, Salkeld G, Houssami N. Model of outcomes of screening mammography: information to support informed choices. BMJ 2005;330:936-8.