217 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12473799)
1. Cost effectiveness of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a review of published studies.
Honey E; Augood C; Templeton A; Russell I; Paavonen J; Mårdh PA; Stary A; Stray-Pedersen B
Sex Transm Infect; 2002 Dec; 78(6):406-12. PubMed ID: 12473799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Control of Chlamydia trachomatis infections in female army recruits: cost-effective screening and treatment in training cohorts to prevent pelvic inflammatory disease.
Howell MR; Gaydos JC; McKee KT; Quinn TC; Gaydos CA
Sex Transm Dis; 1999 Oct; 26(9):519-26. PubMed ID: 10534206
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Screening for chlamydial infection.
Nelson HD; Helfand M
Am J Prev Med; 2001 Apr; 20(3 Suppl):95-107. PubMed ID: 11306238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Screening women for chlamydia trachomatis in family planning clinics: the cost-effectiveness of DNA amplification assays.
Howell MR; Quinn TC; Brathwaite W; Gaydos CA
Sex Transm Dis; 1998 Feb; 25(2):108-17. PubMed ID: 9518379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Developments in the screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a review.
Kohl KS; Markowitz LE; Koumans EH
Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am; 2003 Dec; 30(4):637-58. PubMed ID: 14719842
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. [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]
12. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in asymptomatic women attending family planning clinics. A cost-effectiveness analysis of three strategies.
Howell MR; Quinn TC; Gaydos CA
Ann Intern Med; 1998 Feb; 128(4):277-84. PubMed ID: 9471930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. [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]
17. 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]
18. Cost-effectiveness of screening swab or urine specimens for Chlamydia trachomatis from young Canadian women in Ontario.
Goeree R; Jang D; Blackhouse G; Chong S; Mahony J; Sellors J; Foy A; Chernesky M
Sex Transm Dis; 2001 Dec; 28(12):701-9. PubMed ID: 11725225
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Is the routine pelvic examination needed with the advent of urine-based screening for sexually transmitted diseases?
Shafer MA; Pantell RH; Schachter J
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med; 1999 Feb; 153(2):119-25. PubMed ID: 9988241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
