147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12387690)
1. 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]
2. Socio-economic aspects of extended STD screening in pregnancy.
Postma MJ; Jager JC; de Jong-van den Berg LT
AIDS Care; 2000 Dec; 12(6):731-5. PubMed ID: 11177452
[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. [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]
5. 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]
6. Chlamydia trachomatis: impact on human reproduction.
Paavonen J; Eggert-Kruse W
Hum Reprod Update; 1999; 5(5):433-47. PubMed ID: 10582782
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Overestimation of complication rates in evaluations of Chlamydia trachomatis screening programmes--implications for cost-effectiveness analyses.
van Valkengoed IG; Morré SA; van den Brule AJ; Meijer CJ; Bouter LM; Boeke AJ
Int J Epidemiol; 2004 Apr; 33(2):416-25. PubMed ID: 15082651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [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]
9. [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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. [Opportunistic screening for genital infections with Chlamydia trachomatis among the sexually active population in Amsterdam. III. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening women and the role of reinfection and partner treatment].
Postma MJ; Welte R; van den Hoek JA; Jager JC; van Doornum GJ; Coutinho RA
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 Nov; 143(47):2383-5. PubMed ID: 10590778
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. [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]
16. An evaluation of economics and acceptability of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infection, in women attending antenatal, abortion, colposcopy and family planning clinics in Scotland, UK.
Norman JE; Wu O; Twaddle S; Macmillan S; McMillan L; Templeton A; McKenzie H; Noone A; Allardice G; Reid M
BJOG; 2004 Nov; 111(11):1261-8. PubMed ID: 15521872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The cost-effectiveness of screening men for Chlamydia trachomatis: a review of the literature.
Gift TL; Blake DR; Gaydos CA; Marrazzo JM
Sex Transm Dis; 2008 Nov; 35(11 Suppl):S51-60. PubMed ID: 18520977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Cost-effectiveness of screening programs for Chlamydia trachomatis: a population-based dynamic approach.
Welte R; Kretzschmar M; Leidl R; van den Hoek A; Jager JC; Postma MJ
Sex Transm Dis; 2000 Oct; 27(9):518-29. PubMed ID: 11034526
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. [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]
[Next] [New Search]
