115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15937918)
1. 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]
2. [Participation in the Dutch national screening programme for uterine cervic cancer higher after invitation by a general practitioner, especially in groups with a traditional low level of attendance].
de Nooijer DP; de Waart FG; van Leeuwen AW; Spijker WW
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2005 Oct; 149(42):2339-43. PubMed ID: 16261714
[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. 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]
5. 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]
6. Geographical relationships between sociodemographic factors and incidence of cervical cancer in the Netherlands 1989-2003.
van der Aa MA; Siesling S; Louwman MW; Visser O; Pukkala E; Coebergh JW
Eur J Cancer Prev; 2008 Oct; 17(5):453-9. PubMed ID: 18714188
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Cervical carcinoma in Surinam. Incidence and staging of cervical carcinoma between 1989 and 1994.
Krul EJ; Peters LA; Vandenbroucke JP; Vrede A; van Kanten RW; Fleuren GJ
Cancer; 1996 Apr; 77(7):1329-33. PubMed ID: 8608511
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Attendance to cervical cancer screening in family practices in The Netherlands.
Hermens RP; Tacken MA; Hulscher ME; Braspenning JC; Grol RP
Prev Med; 2000 Jan; 30(1):35-42. PubMed ID: 10642458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Preliminary results of a general practice based call system for cervical cancer screening in The Netherlands.
Palm BT; Kant AC; van den Bosch WJ; Vooijs GP; van Weel C
Br J Gen Pract; 1993 Dec; 43(377):503-6. PubMed ID: 8312021
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Women's perceptions and social barriers determine compliance to cervical screening: results from a population based study in India.
Basu P; Sarkar S; Mukherjee S; Ghoshal M; Mittal S; Biswas S; Mandal R; Sankaranarayanan R
Cancer Detect Prev; 2006; 30(4):369-74. PubMed ID: 16963194
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Adjunctive high-risk human papillomavirus DNA testing is a useful option for disease risk assessment in patients with negative Papanicolaou tests without an endocervical/transformation zone sample.
Zhao C; Austin RM
Cancer; 2008 Aug; 114(4):242-8. PubMed ID: 18484643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A large population-based randomized controlled trial to increase attendance at screening for cervical cancer.
Eaker S; Adami HO; Granath F; Wilander E; Sparén P
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2004 Mar; 13(3):346-54. PubMed ID: 15006907
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Uptake of cervical cancer screening in The Netherlands is mainly influenced by women's beliefs about the screening and by the inviting organization.
Tacken MA; Braspenning JC; Hermens RP; Spreeuwenberg PM; van den Hoogen HJ; de Bakker DH; Groenewegen PP; Grol RP
Eur J Public Health; 2007 Apr; 17(2):178-85. PubMed ID: 16837520
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. [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]
17. 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]
18. [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]
19. A comparison of the efficiency of diagnosis of early cervical carcinoma by general practitioners and cytology screening programs in the Netherlands.
Kirk RS; Boon ME
Acta Cytol; 1981; 25(3):259-62. PubMed ID: 6942616
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
