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 *

126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11026875)

  • 21. Prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis among young German adolescents, 2005-06.
    Desai S; Meyer T; Thamm M; Hamouda O; Bremer V
    Sex Health; 2011 Mar; 8(1):120-2. PubMed ID: 21371394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. [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]  

  • 23. Exploring why a complex intervention piloted in general practices did not result in an increase in chlamydia screening and diagnosis: a qualitative evaluation using the fidelity of implementation model.
    Allison R; Lecky DM; Town K; Rugman C; Ricketts EJ; Ockendon-Powell N; Folkard KA; Dunbar JK; McNulty CA
    BMC Fam Pract; 2017 Mar; 18(1):43. PubMed ID: 28327096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Sports preparticipation examination to screen college athletes for Chlamydia trachomatis.
    Hennrikus E; Oberto D; Linder JM; Rempel JM; Hennrikus N
    Med Sci Sports Exerc; 2010 Apr; 42(4):683-8. PubMed ID: 21099757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis.
    Andersen B; Olesen F
    BMJ; 2012 Jul; 345():e4231. PubMed ID: 22767613
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Geographical differences in Chlamydia trachomatis testing in 15-29 year-olds in Tasmania: Findings from a statewide laboratory data linkage study.
    Stephens N; Coleman D; Shaw K; Venn A
    Aust J Rural Health; 2017 Jun; 25(3):182-184. PubMed ID: 27600207
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Acceptability of home screening for chlamydial infection: some remaining issues.
    Van Bergen JE
    Sex Transm Infect; 2000 Aug; 76(4):321-2. PubMed ID: 11026899
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The chlamydia problem in New Zealand.
    Perkins N
    N Z Med J; 2004 May; 117(1194):U887. PubMed ID: 15156205
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Efficacy of home sampling for screening of Chlamydia trachomatis: randomised study.
    Ostergaard L; Andersen B; Olesen F; Moller JK
    BMJ; 1998 Jul; 317(7150):26-7. PubMed ID: 9651263
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in college women with a polymerase chain reaction assay.
    Baxter R
    Clin Infect Dis; 2000 Feb; 30(2):406-7. PubMed ID: 10671359
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Screening asymptomatic women for Chlamydia trachomatis: abstract and commentary.
    Handsfield HH
    JAMA; 1998 Nov; 280(20):1800-1. PubMed ID: 9842959
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Lessons learned from a population-based chlamydia screening pilot.
    Götz HM; van Bergen JE; Veldhuijzen IK; Hoebe CJ; Broer J; Coenen AJ; de Groot F; Verhooren MJ; van Schaik DT; Richardus JH
    Int J STD AIDS; 2006 Dec; 17(12):826-30. PubMed ID: 17212860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [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]  

  • 35. Laboratory aspects of screening men for Chlamydia trachomatis in the new millennium.
    Gaydos CA; Ferrero DV; Papp J
    Sex Transm Dis; 2008 Nov; 35(11 Suppl):S45-50. PubMed ID: 18449069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Chlamydia screening is not cost-effective at low participation rates: evidence from a repeated register-based implementation study in The Netherlands.
    de Wit GA; Over EA; Schmid BV; van Bergen JE; van den Broek IV; van der Sande MA; Welte R; Op de Coul EL; Kretzschmar ME
    Sex Transm Infect; 2015 Sep; 91(6):423-9. PubMed ID: 25759475
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Expanding efforts to prevent chlamydial infection.
    Stamm WE
    N Engl J Med; 1998 Sep; 339(11):768-70. PubMed ID: 9731096
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The silent epidemic of Chlamydia: what are we missing here?
    Sanfilippo JS
    J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol; 2008 Oct; 21(5):231-2. PubMed ID: 18794016
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Can Chlamydia screening in the Emergency Department reach a different section of the target population?
    Stanley L; Ellks R
    Sex Transm Infect; 2012 Nov; 88(7):551. PubMed ID: 22773330
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. [Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in urine samples. Possibility of a non-invasive screening].
    Clerici P; Pescatori T; de Bartolo A; Lusco G
    Arch Ital Urol Androl; 1994 Jun; 66(3):125-8. PubMed ID: 7920742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.