252 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10590778)
21. Re-infection of Chlamydia trachomatis in patients presenting to the genitourinary medicine clinic in Portsmouth: the chlamydia screening pilot study - three years on.
Lee VF; Tobin JM; Harindra V
Int J STD AIDS; 2004 Nov; 15(11):744-6. PubMed ID: 15537461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. Chlamydia trachomatis prevalence in men in the mid-west of Ireland.
Powell J; O'Connor C; O'hlarlaithe M; Saunders J; De Freitas J
Sex Transm Infect; 2004 Oct; 80(5):349-53. PubMed ID: 15459401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. The effectiveness of patient-delivered partner therapy and chlamydial and gonococcal reinfection in San Francisco.
Stephens SC; Bernstein KT; Katz MH; Philip SS; Klausner JD
Sex Transm Dis; 2010 Aug; 37(8):525-9. PubMed ID: 20502392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Is Europe ready for STD screening?
Mårdh PA
Genitourin Med; 1997 Apr; 73(2):96-8. PubMed ID: 9215088
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. [Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infection: which target group and at what price?].
Postma MJ; van den Hoek JA
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 Jun; 143(23):1237-8. PubMed ID: 10428675
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. [Chlamydia trachomatis infections--a time for action?].
Mylonas I; Kirschner W; Weissenbacher T; Gingelmaier A; Weissenbacher ER; Friese K
Dtsch Med Wochenschr; 2007 May; 132(21):1170-6. PubMed ID: 17506013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. [Chlamydia trachomatis in pregnant women in the county of Vestsjaelland. Prevalence, prevention of perinatal transmission and cost-effectiveness of screening].
Ottesen M; Sahl I; Herbstman MM; Friis HM; Philipsen T
Ugeskr Laeger; 1996 Feb; 158(6):756-8. PubMed ID: 8638313
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Prediction of costs, effectiveness, and disease control of a population-based program using home sampling for diagnosis of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis Infections.
Andersen B; Gundgaard J; Kretzschmar M; Olsen J; Welte R; Oster-Gaard L
Sex Transm Dis; 2006 Jul; 33(7):407-15. PubMed ID: 16601656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Modelling the healthcare costs of an opportunistic chlamydia screening programme.
Adams EJ; LaMontagne DS; Johnston AR; Pimenta JM; Fenton KA; Edmunds WJ
Sex Transm Infect; 2004 Oct; 80(5):363-70. PubMed ID: 15459403
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. A Swedish cost-effectiveness analysis of community-based Chlamydia trachomatis PCR testing of postal urine specimens obtained at home.
Novak DP; Lindholm L; Jonsson M; Karlsson RB
Scand J Public Health; 2004; 32(5):324-32. PubMed ID: 15513664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. The Philadelphia High-School STD Screening Program: key insights from dynamic transmission modeling.
Fisman DN; Spain CV; Salmon ME; Goldberg M
Sex Transm Dis; 2008 Nov; 35(11 Suppl):S61-5. PubMed ID: 18607306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Concurrent patient-partner treatment in pregnancy: an alternative to expedited partner therapy?
Mmeje O; Coleman JS
Sex Transm Dis; 2012 Sep; 39(9):665-70. PubMed ID: 22902661
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. [Risk factors for Clamydia infections of the genital organs in adolescent females].
Sedlecki K; Markovic M; Rajic G
Srp Arh Celok Lek; 2001; 129(7-8):169-74. PubMed ID: 11797445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. The chlamydia screening studies: rationale and design.
Low N; McCarthy A; Macleod J; Salisbury C; Horner PJ; Roberts TE; Campbell R; Herring A; Skidmore S; Sanford E; Sterne JA; Davey Smith G; Graham A; Huengsberg M; Ross J; Egger M
Sex Transm Infect; 2004 Oct; 80(5):342-8. PubMed ID: 15459400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a pharmacy-based screening programme for Chlamydia trachomatis in a high-risk health centre population in Amsterdam using mailed home-collected urine samples.
van Bergen JE; Postma MJ; Peerbooms PG; Spangenberg AC; Tjen-A-Tak J; Bindels PJ
Int J STD AIDS; 2004 Dec; 15(12):797-802. PubMed ID: 15601485
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Partner age not associated with recurrent Chlamydia trachomatis infection, condom use, or partner treatment and referral among adolescent women.
Magnus M; Schillinger JA; Fortenberry JD; Berman SM; Kissinger P
J Adolesc Health; 2006 Sep; 39(3):396-403. PubMed ID: 16919802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. [The Dutch Health Council report on screening for Chlamydia: too reserved].
Dekker JH
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2005 Apr; 149(16):850-2. PubMed ID: 15868986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. A cost-based decision analysis for Chlamydia screening in California family planning clinics.
Trachtenberg AI; Washington AE; Halldorson S
Obstet Gynecol; 1988 Jan; 71(1):101-8. PubMed ID: 3122137
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. [Chlamydia trachomatis: should it be systematically be screened or treated? Literature review and cost/benefit estimation in France].
Henry-Suchet J; Sluzhinska A; Serfaty D
Contracept Fertil Sex; 1998 Feb; 26(2):151-8. PubMed ID: 9560916
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
