141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10417017)
1. Health and cost-benefits of chlamydia screening in young women.
Mangione-Smith R; O'Leary J; McGlynn EA
Sex Transm Dis; 1999 Jul; 26(6):309-16. PubMed ID: 10417017
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Understanding sexual activity defined in the HEDIS measure of screening young women for Chlamydia trachomatis.
Tao G; Walsh CM; Anderson LA; Irwin KL
Jt Comm J Qual Improv; 2002 Aug; 28(8):435-40. PubMed ID: 12182161
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Cost-effectiveness analysis of Chlamydia trachomatis screening in Dutch pregnant women.
Rours GI; Smith-Norowitz TA; Ditkowsky J; Hammerschlag MR; Verkooyen RP; de Groot R; Verbrugh HA; Postma MJ
Pathog Glob Health; 2016; 110(7-8):292-302. PubMed ID: 27958189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Should all sexually active young women in Hungary be screened for Chlamydia trachomatis?
Nyári T; Woodward M; Kovács L
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2003 Jan; 106(1):55-9. PubMed ID: 12475582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [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]
6. [Opportunistic screening for genital infections with Chlamydia trachomatis in sexually active population of Amsterdam. II. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening women].
Postma MJ; Welte R; van den Hoek JA; van Doornum GJ; Coutinho RA; Jager JC
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 Mar; 143(13):677-81. PubMed ID: 10321301
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The cost and cost-effectiveness of opportunistic screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in Ireland.
Gillespie P; O'Neill C; Adams E; Turner K; O'Donovan D; Brugha R; Vaughan D; O'Connell E; Cormican M; Balfe M; Coleman C; Fitzgerald M; Fleming C
Sex Transm Infect; 2012 Apr; 88(3):222-8. PubMed ID: 22213681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Cost-benefit analysis of Chlamydia trachomatis screening in pregnant women in a high burden setting in the United States.
Ditkowsky J; Shah KH; Hammerschlag MR; Kohlhoff S; Smith-Norowitz TA
BMC Infect Dis; 2017 Feb; 17(1):155. PubMed ID: 28214469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [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]
10. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in asymptomatic women in Hungary. An epidemiological and cost-effectiveness analysis.
Nyári T; Nyári C; Woodward M; Mészáros G; Deák J; Nagy E; Kovács L
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2001 Apr; 80(4):300-6. PubMed ID: 11264602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in women 15 to 29 years of age: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Hu D; Hook EW; Goldie SJ
Ann Intern Med; 2004 Oct; 141(7):501-13. PubMed ID: 15466767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Cost-effectiveness of partner pharmacotherapy in screening women for asymptomatic infection with Chlamydia Trachomatis.
Postma MJ; Welte R; van den Hoek JA; van Doornum GJ; Jager HC; Coutinho RA
Value Health; 2001; 4(3):266-75. PubMed ID: 11705188
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [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]
15. The Significant Impact of Different Insurance Enrollment Criteria on the HEDIS Chlamydia Screening Measure for Young Women Enrolled in Medicaid and Commercial Insurance Plans.
Patel CG; Tao G
Sex Transm Dis; 2015 Oct; 42(10):575-9. PubMed ID: 26372930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [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]
17. 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]
18. Chlamydia screening for pregnant women aged 16-25 years attending an antenatal service: a cost-effectiveness study.
Ong JJ; Chen M; Hocking J; Fairley CK; Carter R; Bulfone L; Hsueh A
BJOG; 2016 Jun; 123(7):1194-202. PubMed ID: 26307516
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Cost effectiveness analysis of a population based screening programme for asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis infections in women by means of home obtained urine specimens.
van Valkengoed IG; Postma MJ; Morré SA; van den Brule AJ; Meijer CJ; Bouter LM; Boeke AJ
Sex Transm Infect; 2001 Aug; 77(4):276-82. PubMed ID: 11463928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Systematic screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: estimating cost-effectiveness using dynamic modeling and Dutch data.
de Vries R; van Bergen JE; de Jong-van den Berg LT; Postma MJ;
Value Health; 2006; 9(1):1-11. PubMed ID: 16441519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
