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 *

106 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15466776)

  • 1. Chlamydia screening: expanding the scope.
    Stamm WE
    Ann Intern Med; 2004 Oct; 141(7):570-2. PubMed ID: 15466776
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Relative cost-effectiveness of different tests for Chlamydia trachomatis.
    Jackson B
    Ann Intern Med; 2005 Feb; 142(4):308; author reply 308-9. PubMed ID: 15710968
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. A population based dynamic approach for estimating the cost effectiveness of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis.
    Welte R; Kretzschmar M; van den Hoek JA; Postma MJ
    Sex Transm Infect; 2003 Oct; 79(5):426. PubMed ID: 14573849
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. [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]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. The silent epidemic of Chlamydia: what are we missing here?
    Sanfilippo JS
    J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol; 2008 Oct; 21(5):231-2. PubMed ID: 18794016
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis Infections in Women.
    Wiesenfeld HC
    N Engl J Med; 2017 Feb; 376(8):765-773. PubMed ID: 28225683
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparing cost effectiveness of screening women for Chlamydia trachomatis in systematic and opportunistic approaches.
    Postma MJ; Welte R; van den Hoek JA; Morré SA
    Sex Transm Infect; 2002 Feb; 78(1):73-4. PubMed ID: 11872873
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Commentary: evidence synthesis and evidence consistency.
    Ades AE
    Int J Epidemiol; 2004 Apr; 33(2):426-7. PubMed ID: 15082652
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. [Towards screening for Chlamydia trachomatis].
    Kolmos HJ
    Ugeskr Laeger; 1997 Aug; 159(34):5104-5. PubMed ID: 9297316
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Evaluation of the leukocyte esterase test (LET) as pre-screening test to reduce costs for national population-based Chlamydia trachomatis screening programs.
    Morré SA; Spaargaren J; Veldhuijzen IK; Postma MJ; van Bergen JE; van Bergen JE; Broer J; Coenen AJ; Götz HM; de Groot F; Hoebe CJ; Richardus JH; van Schaik DT; Veldhuijzen IK; Verhooren M;
    J Adolesc Health; 2006 Apr; 38(4):332-3; author reply 333-4. PubMed ID: 16549289
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.