118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15495942)
1. [No major difference between population screening for cervical carcinoma at the present screening interval of 5 years and the former interval of 3 years].
Vinkesteijn AS; Siemens FC; Boon ME; Kuypers JC; Kok LP
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2004 Sep; 148(36):1781-5. PubMed ID: 15495942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Screening-preventable cervical cancer risks: evidence from a nationwide audit in Sweden.
Andrae B; Kemetli L; Sparén P; Silfverdal L; Strander B; Ryd W; Dillner J; Törnberg S
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2008 May; 100(9):622-9. PubMed ID: 18445828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. High-grade cervical abnormalities and screening intervals in New South Wales, Australia.
Schindeler S; Morrell S; Zuo Y; Baker D
J Med Screen; 2008; 15(1):36-43. PubMed ID: 18416954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Population-based cervical screening with a 5-year interval in The Netherlands. Stabilization of the incidence of squamous cell carcinoma and its precursor lesions in the screened population.
Siemens FC; Boon ME; Kuypers JC; Kok LP
Acta Cytol; 2004; 48(3):348-54. PubMed ID: 15192950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Differences in screening history, tumour characteristics and survival between women with screen-detected versus not screen-detected cervical cancer in the east of The Netherlands, 1992-2001.
van der Aa MA; Schutter EM; Looijen-Salamon M; Martens JE; Siesling S
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2008 Aug; 139(2):204-9. PubMed ID: 18093720
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Effect of cytologic screening on the detection of cervical carcinoma.
Yajima A; Mori T; Sato S; Wakisaka T; Suzuki M
Obstet Gynecol; 1982 May; 59(5):565-8. PubMed ID: 7070726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia III. An estimate of screening error rates and optimal screening interval.
Cecchini S; Palli D; Casini A
Acta Cytol; 1985; 29(3):329-33. PubMed ID: 3859131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Results of the Leiden mass screening for cervix uteri carcinoma; the 'young' (24-34 years) versus the 'old' (35-54 years) group of women].
Boon ME; de Graaff Guilloud-Gentenaar JC; Beck S
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1990 Aug; 134(32):1545-9. PubMed ID: 2392176
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Screening for cervical carcinoma.
van Leeuwen AW; de Nooijer P; Hop WC
Cancer; 2005 Oct; 105(5):270-6. PubMed ID: 15937918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Improvement in protection against adenocarcinoma of the cervix resulting from participation in cervical screening.
Mitchell H; Hocking J; Saville M
Cancer; 2003 Dec; 99(6):336-41. PubMed ID: 14681940
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Effect of an antepartum Pap smear on the coverage of a cervical cancer screening programme: a population-based prospective study.
Nygård M; Daltveit AK; Thoresen SO; Nygård JF
BMC Health Serv Res; 2007 Jan; 7():10. PubMed ID: 17244348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A longitudinal Swedish study on screening for squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma: evidence of effectiveness and overtreatment.
Gunnell AS; Ylitalo N; Sandin S; Sparén P; Adami HO; Ripatti S
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2007 Dec; 16(12):2641-8. PubMed ID: 18086769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Incidence of cervical carcinoma in a high-risk, non-screened area results of a retrospective analysis on the Dutch Caribbean Antilles from 1983 to 1998.
Bax A; Voigt RR; Coronel CC; Putter H; de Bie Leuving Tjeenk RM; van Marwijk HW
West Indian Med J; 2004 Jun; 53(3):150-4. PubMed ID: 15352742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The effect of mass screening on incidence and mortality of squamous and adenocarcinoma of cervix uteri.
Nieminen P; Kallio M; Hakama M
Obstet Gynecol; 1995 Jun; 85(6):1017-21. PubMed ID: 7770247
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The impact of the National Cervical Screening Programme on the presentation of cancer of the cervix in Canterbury.
Simcock B; Sykes P; Laney M
N Z Med J; 2001 Aug; 114(1138):378-80. PubMed ID: 11589435
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [The 1996 revision of the Dutch cervical cancer screening programme: increased coverage, fewer repeat smears and less opportunistic screening].
Berkers LM; van Ballegooijen M; van Kemenade FJ; Rebolj M; Essink-Bot ML; Helmerhorst TJ; Habbema JD
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2007 Jun; 151(23):1288-94. PubMed ID: 17624160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Increasing trends of cervical adenocarcinoma incidence in Central Italy despite Extensive Screening Programme, 1985-2000.
Visioli CB; Zappa M; Ciatto S; Iossa A; Crocetti E
Cancer Detect Prev; 2004; 28(6):461-4. PubMed ID: 15582270
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Computer-assisted screening for cervical carcinoma--the results for a 10-year period].
Neumann HG; Seidenschnur G
Arch Geschwulstforsch; 1987; 57(2):129-39. PubMed ID: 3296989
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Risk of invasive cervical cancer after Pap smears: the protective effect of multiple negatives.
Coldman A; Phillips N; Kan L; Matisic J; Benedet L; Towers L
J Med Screen; 2005; 12(1):7-11. PubMed ID: 15814014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The agreement between self-reported cervical smear abnormalities and screening programme records.
Canfell K; Beral V; Green J; Cameron R; Baker K; Brown A
J Med Screen; 2006; 13(2):72-5. PubMed ID: 16792828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
