131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15734097)
21. State-level differences in breast and cervical cancer screening by disability status: United States, 2008.
Armour BS; Thierry JM; Wolf LA
Womens Health Issues; 2009; 19(6):406-14. PubMed ID: 19879454
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Participation in highly subsidized cervical cancer screening by women in Enugu, South-east Nigeria.
Obi SN; Ozumba BC; Nwokocha AR; Waboso PA
J Obstet Gynaecol; 2007 Apr; 27(3):305-7. PubMed ID: 17464818
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Cancer screening in Singapore, with particular reference to breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening.
Yeoh KG; Chew L; Wang SC
J Med Screen; 2006; 13 Suppl 1():S14-9. PubMed ID: 17227636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Trends in abnormal cancer screening results in the United States of America.
Yabroff KR; Freedman A; Brown ML; Ballard-Barbash R; McNeel T; Taplin S
J Med Screen; 2007; 14(2):67-72. PubMed ID: 17626704
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. A case-control study of the protective benefit of cervical screening against invasive cervical cancer in NSW women.
Yang B; Morrell S; Zuo Y; Roder D; Tracey E; Jelfs P
Cancer Causes Control; 2008 Aug; 19(6):569-76. PubMed ID: 18286380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Why do women participate in the English cervical cancer screening programme?
Whynes DK; Philips Z; Avis M
J Health Econ; 2007 Mar; 26(2):306-25. PubMed ID: 17010459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. [Cervical cancer after 10 years of nationally coordinated screening].
Haldorsen T; Skare GB; Steen R; Thoresen SO
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2008 Mar; 128(6):682-5. PubMed ID: 18337847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. 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]
29. Trends in cervical squamous cell carcinoma incidence in 13 European countries: changing risk and the effects of screening.
Bray F; Loos AH; McCarron P; Weiderpass E; Arbyn M; Møller H; Hakama M; Parkin DM
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2005 Mar; 14(3):677-86. PubMed ID: 15767349
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Cervical cancer screening and management practices among providers in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP).
Saraiya M; Irwin KL; Carlin L; Chen X; Jain N; Benard V; Montano DE
Cancer; 2007 Sep; 110(5):1024-32. PubMed ID: 17628488
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Results of a cervical cancer screening programme from an area of Barcelona (Spain) with a large immigrant population.
Casamitjana M; Sala M; Ochoa D; Fusté P; Castells X; Alameda F;
Eur J Public Health; 2009 Oct; 19(5):499-503. PubMed ID: 19435798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Differences in predictors of cervical and breast cancer screening by screening need in uninsured Latino women.
Buki LP; Jamison J; Anderson CJ; Cuadra AM
Cancer; 2007 Oct; 110(7):1578-85. PubMed ID: 17696119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Cervical cancer screening in medically underserved California Latina and non-Latina women: effect of age and regularity of Pap testing.
Howell LP; Gurusinghe S; Tabnak F; Sciortino S
Cancer Detect Prev; 2009; 32(5-6):372-9. PubMed ID: 19264426
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Invasive cervical cancer: a failure of screening.
Spayne J; Ackerman I; Milosevic M; Seidenfeld A; Covens A; Paszat L
Eur J Public Health; 2008 Apr; 18(2):162-5. PubMed ID: 17483491
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. The uptake of cervical cancer screening by renal transplant recipients.
Courtney AE; Leonard N; O'Neill CJ; McNamee PT; Maxwell AP
Nephrol Dial Transplant; 2009 Feb; 24(2):647-52. PubMed ID: 18952575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. [Proposal of cervical cancer early detection programme in Croatia].
Znaor A; Babić D; Corusić A; Grce M; Mahovlić V; Pajtler M; Serman A
Lijec Vjesn; 2007 May; 129(5):158-63. PubMed ID: 17695198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. An assessment of rural women's knowledge, constraints and perceptions on cervical cancer screening: the case of two districts in Zimbabwe.
Mangoma JF; Chirenje MZ; Chimbari MJ; Chandiwana SK
Afr J Reprod Health; 2006 Apr; 10(1):91-103. PubMed ID: 16999199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Cytopathology in Austria.
Breitenecker G; Dinges HP; Regitnig P; Wiener H; Vutuc Ch
Cytopathology; 2004 Apr; 15(2):113-8. PubMed ID: 15056173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. [Are analyses of cytological cervix smears from young women more harmful than beneficial?].
Skjeldestad FE; Hagen B; Hagmar B; Iversen OE; Juvkam KH; Steen R; Thoresen S; Hareide B
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2007 Jun; 127(13):1782-5. PubMed ID: 17599128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Participation in cervical cancer screening by age and region--a cohort study with a 3 1/2 year follow-up on 2,223,135 women in Bavaria.
Rückinger S; Tauscher M; Redel R; Munte A; Walchner-Bonjean M; Hess J; Schneider A; von Kries R
Gesundheitswesen; 2008 Jun; 70(6):e17-21. PubMed ID: 18661453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
