153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12475582)
1. 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]
2. [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]
3. 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]
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 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]
6. [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]
7. 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]
8. Risk assessment and other screening options for gonorrhoea and chlamydial infections in women attending rural Tanzanian antenatal clinics.
Mayaud P; Grosskurth H; Changalucha J; Todd J; West B; Gabone R; Senkoro K; Rusizoka M; Laga M; Hayes R
Bull World Health Organ; 1995; 73(5):621-30. PubMed ID: 8846488
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Health gains from screening for infection of the lower genital tract in women attending for termination of pregnancy.
Blackwell AL; Thomas PD; Wareham K; Emery SJ
Lancet; 1993 Jul; 342(8865):206-10. PubMed ID: 8100930
[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. 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]
13. Chlamydia trachomatis screening in family planning centers: a review of cost/benefit evaluations in different countries.
Henry-Suchet J; Sluzhinska A; Serfaty D
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care; 1996 Dec; 1(4):301-9. PubMed ID: 9678112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Chlamydia trachomatis during pregnancy. To screen or not to screen?
Carroll JC
Can Fam Physician; 1993 Jan; 39():97-102. PubMed ID: 8435566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Is Europe ready for STD screening?
Mårdh PA
Genitourin Med; 1997 Apr; 73(2):96-8. PubMed ID: 9215088
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Health and cost-benefits of chlamydia screening in young women.
Mangione-Smith R; O'Leary J; McGlynn EA
Sex Transm Dis; 1999 Jul; 26(6):309-16. PubMed ID: 10417017
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Universal screening or prophylactic treatment for Chlamydia trachomatis infection among women seeking induced abortions: which strategy is more cost-effective?
Chen S; Li J; van den Hoek A
Sex Transm Dis; 2007 Apr; 34(4):230-6. PubMed ID: 17414068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
