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 *

147 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12387690)

  • 41. [Asymptomatic genital infection by Chlamydia trachomatis in women. A cost analysis of control check-ups].
    Schiøtz HA; Csángó PA
    Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 1991 Mar; 111(7):848-50. PubMed ID: 1902332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Epidemiology of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women and the cost-effectiveness of screening.
    Land JA; Van Bergen JE; Morré SA; Postma MJ
    Hum Reprod Update; 2010; 16(2):189-204. PubMed ID: 19828674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. [Potentials of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in Hungary: cost-benefit analysis].
    Nyári T; Mészáros G; Deák J; Nagy E; Kovács L
    Orv Hetil; 2000 Jul; 141(27):1511-6. PubMed ID: 10943109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. [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]  

  • 45. The impact of natural history parameters on the cost-effectiveness of Chlamydia trachomatis screening strategies.
    Hu D; Hook EW; Goldie SJ
    Sex Transm Dis; 2006 Jul; 33(7):428-36. PubMed ID: 16572038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. The cost effectiveness of screening for genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in Australia.
    Walleser S; Salkeld G; Donovan B
    Sex Health; 2006 Dec; 3(4):225-34. PubMed ID: 17112432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. The utility and cost of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae screening of a male infertility population.
    Domes T; Lo KC; Grober ED; Mullen JB; Mazzulli T; Jarvi K
    Fertil Steril; 2012 Feb; 97(2):299-305. PubMed ID: 22192351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Major improvements in cost effectiveness of screening women for Chlamydia trachomatis using pooled urine specimens and high performance testing.
    Morré SA; Welte R; Postma MJ
    Sex Transm Infect; 2002 Feb; 78(1):74-5. PubMed ID: 11872874
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Health economic methodology illustrated with recent work on Chlamydia screening: the concept of extended dominance.
    Postma MJ; de Vries R; Welte R; Edmunds WJ
    Sex Transm Infect; 2008 Apr; 84(2):152-4. PubMed ID: 18077610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Cost effectiveness analysis of a population based screening programme for asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women.
    Gupta M; Hernon M; Gokhale R; Ghosh AK
    Sex Transm Infect; 2002 Feb; 78(1):76. PubMed ID: 11872877
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. 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]  

  • 52. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis; the Amsterdam experience.
    Bleker OP
    Minerva Ginecol; 2000 Dec; 52(12 Suppl 1):97-9. PubMed ID: 11526697
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. 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]  

  • 54. Azithromycin. A pharmacoeconomic review of its use as a single-dose regimen in the treatment of uncomplicated urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infections in women.
    Lea AP; Lamb HM
    Pharmacoeconomics; 1997 Nov; 12(5):596-611. PubMed ID: 10174326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Chlamydia trachomatis: time for screening?
    Spiliopoulou A; Lakiotis V; Vittoraki A; Zavou D; Mauri D
    Clin Microbiol Infect; 2005 Sep; 11(9):687-9. PubMed ID: 16104982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. [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]  

  • 57. Chlamydia trachomatis infection in pregnant women hospitalised in the Institute of Mother and Child in Warsaw, Poland.
    Pawłowska A; Niemiec KT; Filipp E; El Midaoui A; Scholz A; Marianowska S; Raczyński P
    Med Wieku Rozwoj; 2005; 9(1):21-6. PubMed ID: 16082061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Chlamydia: the most common sexually transmitted infection.
    Davis A
    Nurs Times; 1998 Feb 4-10; 94(5):56-8. PubMed ID: 9536766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Point-of-entry screening for C. trachomatis In female army recruits. Who derives the cost savings?
    Howell MR; McKee KTJr ; Gaydos JC; Quinn TC; Gaydos CA
    Am J Prev Med; 2000 Oct; 19(3):160-6. PubMed ID: 11020592
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in pregnant women in Martinique.
    Chout RT; Vaton S; Duval-Violton D; Leguyader-Despres P; Orfila J
    Sex Transm Dis; 1995; 22(4):221-7. PubMed ID: 7482104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.