54 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10394546)
1. Economic impact of automated primary screening for cervical cancer.
Smith BL; Lee M; Leader S; Wertlake P
J Reprod Med; 1999 Jun; 44(6):518-28. PubMed ID: 10394546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Understanding the financial impact of covering new screening technologies. The case of automated Pap smears.
McQuarrie HG; Ogden J; Costa M
J Reprod Med; 2000 Nov; 45(11):898-906. PubMed ID: 11127101
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Clinical and cost implications of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: the impact of test sensitivity.
Hutchinson ML; Berger BM; Farber FL
Am J Manag Care; 2000 Jul; 6(7):766-80. PubMed ID: 11067374
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The cost-effectiveness of cervical screening in Australia: what is the impact of screening at different intervals or over a different age range?
Anderson R; Haas M; Shanahan M
Aust N Z J Public Health; 2008 Feb; 32(1):43-52. PubMed ID: 18290913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Economic impact of automated primary screening for cervical cancer.
Lonky SA
J Reprod Med; 2000 Jan; 45(1):83-4. PubMed ID: 10702051
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Health-related quality of life, satisfaction, and economic outcome measures in studies of prostate cancer screening and treatment, 1990-2000.
McNaughton-Collins M; Walker-Corkery E; Barry MJ
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 2004; (33):78-101. PubMed ID: 15504921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Cost-effectiveness of organized versus opportunistic cervical cytology screening in Hong Kong.
Kim JJ; Leung GM; Woo PP; Goldie SJ
J Public Health (Oxf); 2004 Jun; 26(2):130-7. PubMed ID: 15284314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. An alternative cost effectiveness analysis of ThinPrep in the Australian setting.
Neville AM; Quinn MA
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2005 Aug; 45(4):289-94. PubMed ID: 16029294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The German cervical cancer screening model: development and validation of a decision-analytic model for cervical cancer screening in Germany.
Siebert U; Sroczynski G; Hillemanns P; Engel J; Stabenow R; Stegmaier C; Voigt K; Gibis B; Hölzel D; Goldie SJ
Eur J Public Health; 2006 Apr; 16(2):185-92. PubMed ID: 16469759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Prevention of cervical cancer with screening programme in Branicevo District and cost-effectiveness analysis adjusted to the territory of the Republic of Serbia.
Perovic S
J BUON; 2009; 14(1):93-6. PubMed ID: 19373953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Cervical cancer screening and associated treatment costs in France].
Bergeron C; Breugelmans JG; Bouée S; Lorans C; Bénard S; Rémy V
Gynecol Obstet Fertil; 2006 Nov; 34(11):1036-42. PubMed ID: 17070085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. ["Cost-effectiveness" of cervical screening].
Kostova P
Akush Ginekol (Sofiia); 2007; 46(6):32-4. PubMed ID: 17974169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Cost-effectiveness of extending cervical cancer screening intervals among women with prior normal pap tests.
Kulasingam SL; Myers ER; Lawson HW; McConnell KJ; Kerlikowske K; Melnikow J; Washington AE; Sawaya GF
Obstet Gynecol; 2006 Feb; 107(2 Pt 1):321-8. PubMed ID: 16449119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Cost-effectiveness analysis of liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening.
Bidus MA; Maxwell GL; Kulasingam S; Rose GS; Elkas JC; Chernofsky M; Myers ER
Obstet Gynecol; 2006 May; 107(5):997-1005. PubMed ID: 16648402
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The health and economic impact of cervical cancer screening and human papillomavirus vaccination in kidney transplant recipients.
Wong G; Howard K; Webster A; Chapman JR; Craig JC
Transplantation; 2009 Apr; 87(7):1078-91. PubMed ID: 19352131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Primary surgery versus chemoradiation in the treatment of IB2 cervical carcinoma: a cost effectiveness analysis.
Jewell EL; Kulasingam S; Myers ER; Alvarez Secord A; Havrilesky LJ
Gynecol Oncol; 2007 Dec; 107(3):532-40. PubMed ID: 17900674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. De novo establishment and cost-effectiveness of Papanicolaou cytology screening services in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
Suba EJ; Nguyen CH; Nguyen BD; Raab SS;
Cancer; 2001 Mar; 91(5):928-39. PubMed ID: 11251944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for lung cancer with low dose spiral CT (computed tomography) in the Australian setting.
Manser R; Dalton A; Carter R; Byrnes G; Elwood M; Campbell DA
Lung Cancer; 2005 May; 48(2):171-85. PubMed ID: 15829317
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination in Belgium: do not forget about cervical cancer screening.
Thiry N; De Laet C; Hulstaert F; Neyt M; Huybrechts M; Cleemput I
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2009 Apr; 25(2):161-70. PubMed ID: 19366497
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effectiveness of AutoPap system location-guided screening in the evaluation of cervical cytology smears.
Stevens MW; Milne AJ; Parkinson IH; Nespolon WW; Fazzalari NL; Arora N; Dodd TJ
Diagn Cytopathol; 2004 Aug; 31(2):94-9. PubMed ID: 15282720
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
