-
Obstet. Gynecol. Clin. North Am. · Sep 2013
ReviewControversies regarding mammography, breast self-examination, and clinical breast examination.
- Anita L Nelson.
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, 1000 West Carson Street, Box 474, Torrance, CA 90509, USA. Electronic address: anitalnelson@earthlink.net.
- Obstet. Gynecol. Clin. North Am. 2013 Sep 1; 40 (3): 413-27.
AbstractThe number of women diagnosed with breast cancer continues to increase, but mortality rates have substantially declined. Much of the credit for this decline has been attributed to early detection from mammographic screening. However, there are significant controversies about the effectiveness of all screening tools for breast cancer, concerns about the potential harm that can result from screening, and questions about the appropriateness of screening recommendations. One of the greatest barriers to achieving consensus is the lack of agreement about the purpose of screening efforts. This article reviews many of the current controversies and attempts to clarify the arguments.Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.