PEER REVIEWED
During the identification process, titles and abstracts were identified through electronic sources (n = 80) and bibliographies (n = 13). After duplicates (n = 38) were removed, 55 records were screened. Records not meeting eligibility were removed (n = 39); 16 articles were eligible for full text review. Of these, 6 were excluded because they did not assess mobile mammography participation (n = 5) or were under embargo (n = 1). A final 10 articles were included in the review.
Figure.
The process of including and excluding articles analyzed in a systematic review of mobile mammography among medically underserved women, United States, January 2010–March 2018.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.3