These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

135 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10102865)

  • 1. Sexuality and health: the hidden costs of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis.
    Duncan B; Hart G
    BMJ; 1999 Apr; 318(7188):931-3. PubMed ID: 10102865
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Comparing cost effectiveness of screening women for Chlamydia trachomatis in systematic and opportunistic approaches.
    Postma MJ; Welte R; van den Hoek JA; Morré SA
    Sex Transm Infect; 2002 Feb; 78(1):73-4. PubMed ID: 11872873
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Cost effectiveness analysis of a population based screening programme for asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women.
    Gupta M; Hernon M; Gokhale R; Ghosh AK
    Sex Transm Infect; 2002 Feb; 78(1):76. PubMed ID: 11872877
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. [Towards screening for Chlamydia trachomatis].
    Kolmos HJ
    Ugeskr Laeger; 1997 Aug; 159(34):5104-5. PubMed ID: 9297316
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Major improvements in cost effectiveness of screening women for Chlamydia trachomatis using pooled urine specimens and high performance testing.
    Morré SA; Welte R; Postma MJ
    Sex Transm Infect; 2002 Feb; 78(1):74-5. PubMed ID: 11872874
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [Opportunistic screening for genital infections with Chlamydia trachomatis in sexually active population of Amsterdam. II. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening women].
    Ruitenberg EN
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 May; 143(19):1012. PubMed ID: 10368724
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. An evaluation of economics and acceptability of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infection, in women attending antenatal, abortion, colposcopy and family planning clinics in Scotland, UK.
    Norman JE; Wu O; Twaddle S; Macmillan S; McMillan L; Templeton A; McKenzie H; Noone A; Allardice G; Reid M
    BJOG; 2004 Nov; 111(11):1261-8. PubMed ID: 15521872
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Screening for asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis infection: cost-effectiveness favorable at a minimum prevalence rate of 3% or more].
    Habets PC
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2001 Mar; 145(10):499-501. PubMed ID: 11268916
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Is screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infection cost effective?
    Paavonen J
    Genitourin Med; 1997 Apr; 73(2):103-4. PubMed ID: 9215090
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Opportunistic screening for genital infections with Chlamydia trachomatis among the sexually active population in Amsterdam. III. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening women and the role of reinfection and partner treatment].
    Postma MJ; Welte R; van den Hoek JA; Jager JC; van Doornum GJ; Coutinho RA
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 Nov; 143(47):2383-5. PubMed ID: 10590778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Healthcare and patient costs of a proactive chlamydia screening programme: the Chlamydia Screening Studies project.
    Robinson S; Roberts T; Barton P; Bryan S; Macleod J; McCarthy A; Egger M; Sanford E; Low N;
    Sex Transm Infect; 2007 Jul; 83(4):276-81. PubMed ID: 17229792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. [Screening for asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis infection in pregnancy; cost-effectiveness favorable at a minimum prevalence rate of 3% or more].
    Postma MJ; Bakker A; Welte R; van Bergen JE; van den Hoek JA; de Jong-van den Berg LT; Jager JC
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2000 Dec; 144(49):2350-4. PubMed ID: 11129971
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. High cost of Chlamydia can be cut, researcher finds.
    Silversides A
    CMAJ; 1999 Apr; 160(8):1119. PubMed ID: 10234330
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Chlamydia trachomatis: common misperceptions and misunderstandings.
    Stevens-Simon C; Sheeder J
    J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol; 2005 Aug; 18(4):231-43. PubMed ID: 16171726
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Cost-utility of repeated screening for Chlamydia trachomatis.
    de Vries R; van Bergen JE; de Jong-van den Berg LT; Postma MJ;
    Value Health; 2008; 11(2):272-4. PubMed ID: 18380639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review of the economic evaluations and modelling.
    Roberts TE; Robinson S; Barton P; Bryan S; Low N;
    Sex Transm Infect; 2006 Jun; 82(3):193-200; discussion 201. PubMed ID: 16731666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Is Europe ready for STD screening?
    Mårdh PA
    Genitourin Med; 1997 Apr; 73(2):96-8. PubMed ID: 9215088
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Potentials of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in Hungary: cost-benefit analysis].
    Nyári T; Mészáros G; Deák J; Nagy E; Kovács L
    Orv Hetil; 2000 Jul; 141(27):1511-6. PubMed ID: 10943109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Modelling the impact of opportunistic screening on the sequelae and public healthcare costs of infection with Chlamydia trachomatis in Australian women.
    Ward B; Rodger AJ; Jackson TJ
    Public Health; 2006 Jan; 120(1):42-9. PubMed ID: 16271271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Estimation of the burden of disease and costs of genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in Canada.
    Tuite AR; Jayaraman GC; Allen VG; Fisman DN
    Sex Transm Dis; 2012 Apr; 39(4):260-7. PubMed ID: 22421691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.