123 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11127101)
21. The economic burden of lung cancer and the associated costs of treatment failure in the United States.
Kutikova L; Bowman L; Chang S; Long SR; Obasaju C; Crown WH
Lung Cancer; 2005 Nov; 50(2):143-54. PubMed ID: 16112249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Effectiveness of rapid prescreening and 10% rescreening in liquid-based Papanicolaou testing.
Currens HS; Nejkauf K; Wagner L; Raab SS
Am J Clin Pathol; 2012 Jan; 137(1):150-5. PubMed ID: 22180489
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Health service utilization among Alzheimer's disease patients: evidence from managed care.
Frytak JR; Henk HJ; Zhao Y; Bowman L; Flynn JA; Nelson M
Alzheimers Dement; 2008 Sep; 4(5):361-7. PubMed ID: 18790463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. A clinical trial of the AutoPap 300 QC system for quality control of cervicovaginal cytology in the clinical laboratory.
Colgan TJ; Patten SF; Lee JS
Acta Cytol; 1995; 39(6):1191-8. PubMed ID: 7483997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Impact of rosuvastatin use on costs and outcomes in patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease in US managed care and medicare populations: A data analysis.
Huse DM; Song X; Ozminkowski RJ; Maguire J; Williams SA; Borok GM; McDonough K
Clin Ther; 2006 Sep; 28(9):1425-42. PubMed ID: 17062315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. Patterns of mental health utilization and costs among children in a privately insured population.
Leslie DL; Rosenheck RA; Horwitz SM
Health Serv Res; 2001 Apr; 36(1 Pt 1):113-27. PubMed ID: 11324739
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Semi-automated cervical smear pre-screening systems: an evaluation of the Cytoscan-110.
Husain OA; Watts KC; Lorriman F; Butler B; Tucker J; Carothers A; Eason P; Farrow S; Rutovitz D; Stark M
Anal Cell Pathol; 1993 Jan; 5(1):49-68. PubMed ID: 8424901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. New tests for cervical cancer screening.
Nuovo J; Melnikow J; Howell LP
Am Fam Physician; 2001 Sep; 64(5):780-6. PubMed ID: 11563569
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. [The 1996 revision of the Dutch cervical cancer screening programme: increased coverage, fewer repeat smears and less opportunistic screening].
Berkers LM; van Ballegooijen M; van Kemenade FJ; Rebolj M; Essink-Bot ML; Helmerhorst TJ; Habbema JD
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2007 Jun; 151(23):1288-94. PubMed ID: 17624160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Cost-effectiveness of a tailored intervention to increase screening in HMO women overdue for Pap test and mammography services.
Lynch FL; Whitlock EP; Valanis BG; Smith SK
Prev Med; 2004 Apr; 38(4):403-11. PubMed ID: 15020173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Prospects for newer technologies in cervical cancer screening programmes.
Hailey DM; Lea R
J Qual Clin Pract; 1995 Sep; 15(3):139-45. PubMed ID: 8528539
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. American Society of Clinical Oncology guidance statement: the cost of cancer care.
Meropol NJ; Schrag D; Smith TJ; Mulvey TM; Langdon RM; Blum D; Ubel PA; Schnipper LE;
J Clin Oncol; 2009 Aug; 27(23):3868-74. PubMed ID: 19581533
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. An economic model for comparing alternative policies for cervical cytologic smear screening.
Kaminsky FC; Burke RJ; Haberle KR; Mullins DL
Acta Cytol; 1995; 39(2):232-8. PubMed ID: 7887070
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Management of women with abnormal cervical cytology: treatment patterns and associated costs in England and Wales.
Martin-Hirsch P; Rash B; Martin A; Standaert B
BJOG; 2007 Apr; 114(4):408-15. PubMed ID: 17378815
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Automated rescreening in cervical cytology. Mathematical models for evaluating overall process sensitivity, specificity and cost.
Kaminsky FC; Benneyan JC; Mullins DL
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):209-23. PubMed ID: 9022745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The ultimate goal? It depends.
Brown E
Physician Exec; 1996 Oct; 22(10):50-2. PubMed ID: 10162496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Vaginal pH as an OTC screening tool for vaginitis.
Wysocki S
Adv Nurse Pract; 2009 Oct; 17(10):29-33, 44. PubMed ID: 20000160
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Increased cervical cytologic smear access through increased capacity.
Shaver JL
J Reprod Med; 1998 Nov; 43(11):1005-6. PubMed ID: 9839272
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
