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 *

134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11872874)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Chlamydia trachomatis infection among women 26 to 39 years of age in the United States, 1999 to 2010.
    Torrone EA; Geisler WM; Gift TL; Weinstock HS
    Sex Transm Dis; 2013 Apr; 40(4):335-7. PubMed ID: 23486500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Should asymptomatic men be included in chlamydia screening programs? Cost-effectiveness of chlamydia screening among male and female entrants to a national job training program.
    Blake DR; Quinn TC; Gaydos CA
    Sex Transm Dis; 2008 Jan; 35(1):91-101. PubMed ID: 18217229
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Evaluation of urine-based screening strategies to detect Chlamydia trachomatis among sexually active asymptomatic young males.
    Shafer MA; Schachter J; Moncada J; Keogh J; Pantell R; Gourlay L; Eyre S; Boyer CB
    JAMA; 1993 Nov; 270(17):2065-70. PubMed ID: 8411573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. [Ligase chain reaction testing of pooled urine specimens to diagnose Chlamydia trachomatis infection].
    Sánchez-Alemán MA; Gutiérrez JP; Bertozzi SM; Frontela-Noda M; Guerrero-Lemus V; Conde-González CJ
    Rev Invest Clin; 2005; 57(4):548-54. PubMed ID: 16315639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Cost effectiveness of home based population screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in the UK: economic evaluation of chlamydia screening studies (ClaSS) project.
    Roberts TE; Robinson S; Barton PM; Bryan S; McCarthy A; Macleod J; Egger M; Low N
    BMJ; 2007 Aug; 335(7614):291. PubMed ID: 17656504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. [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]  

  • 28. Cost-effectiveness of widespread screening for Chlamydia trachomatis.
    Postma MJ; Welte R; Morré SA
    Expert Opin Pharmacother; 2002 Oct; 3(10):1443-50. PubMed ID: 12387690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Is Europe ready for STD screening?
    Mårdh PA
    Genitourin Med; 1997 Apr; 73(2):96-8. PubMed ID: 9215088
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Cost-utility of repeated screening for Chlamydia trachomatis.
    de Vries R; van Bergen JE; de Jong-van den Berg LT; Postma MJ;
    Value Health; 2008; 11(2):272-4. PubMed ID: 18380639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Summaries for patients. The cost-effectiveness of screening for Chlamydia in women 15 to 29 years of age.
    Ann Intern Med; 2004 Oct; 141(7):I29. PubMed ID: 15466762
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review of the economic evaluations and modelling.
    Roberts TE; Robinson S; Barton P; Bryan S; Low N;
    Sex Transm Infect; 2006 Jun; 82(3):193-200; discussion 201. PubMed ID: 16731666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Chlamydia trachomatis: common misperceptions and misunderstandings.
    Stevens-Simon C; Sheeder J
    J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol; 2005 Aug; 18(4):231-43. PubMed ID: 16171726
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Cost effectiveness of testing for chlamydial infections in asymptomatic women.
    Buhaug H; Skjeldestad FE; Backe B; Dalen A
    Med Care; 1989 Aug; 27(8):833-41. PubMed ID: 2502694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. Benefit of adjunct universal rectal screening for Chlamydia genital infections in women attending Canadian sexually transmitted infection clinics.
    Thanh NX; Akpinar I; Gratrix J; Plitt S; Smyczek P; Read R; Jacobs P; Wong T; Singh AE
    Int J STD AIDS; 2017 Nov; 28(13):1311-1324. PubMed ID: 28534712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a case for empirical treatment.
    Gunn RA; Spitters CE
    JAMA; 1994 Jun; 271(22):1741-2. PubMed ID: 8196110
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. Sexuality and health: the hidden costs of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis.
    Duncan B; Hart G
    BMJ; 1999 Apr; 318(7188):931-3. PubMed ID: 10102865
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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