97 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16029294)
21. ThinPrep pap test: a platform for gynecological diagnosis.
Scimia M
Adv Clin Path; 2001 Oct; 5(4):183-4. PubMed ID: 17582941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Understanding the financial impact of covering new screening technologies. The case of automated Pap smears.
McQuarrie HG; Ogden J; Costa M
J Reprod Med; 2000 Nov; 45(11):898-906. PubMed ID: 11127101
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Management of women with abnormal cervical cytology: treatment patterns and associated costs in England and Wales.
Martin-Hirsch P; Rash B; Martin A; Standaert B
BJOG; 2007 Apr; 114(4):408-15. PubMed ID: 17378815
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Primary surgery versus chemoradiation in the treatment of IB2 cervical carcinoma: a cost effectiveness analysis.
Jewell EL; Kulasingam S; Myers ER; Alvarez Secord A; Havrilesky LJ
Gynecol Oncol; 2007 Dec; 107(3):532-40. PubMed ID: 17900674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Screening, prevention and treatment of cervical cancer -- a global and regional generalized cost-effectiveness analysis.
Ginsberg GM; Edejer TT; Lauer JA; Sepulveda C
Vaccine; 2009 Oct; 27(43):6060-79. PubMed ID: 19647813
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Prospects for newer technologies in cervical cancer screening programmes.
Hailey DM; Lea R
J Qual Clin Pract; 1995 Sep; 15(3):139-45. PubMed ID: 8528539
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Breast cancer screening policies in developing countries: a cost-effectiveness analysis for India.
Okonkwo QL; Draisma G; der Kinderen A; Brown ML; de Koning HJ
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2008 Sep; 100(18):1290-300. PubMed ID: 18780864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Economic impact of automated primary screening for cervical cancer.
Smith BL; Lee M; Leader S; Wertlake P
J Reprod Med; 1999 Jun; 44(6):518-28. PubMed ID: 10394546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. The cost-effectiveness of screening programs using single and multiple birth cohort simulations: a comparison using a model of cervical cancer.
Dewilde S; Anderson R
Med Decis Making; 2004; 24(5):486-92. PubMed ID: 15358997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. What is the least costly strategy to evaluate cervical abnormalities in rural women? Comparing telemedicine, local practitioners, and expert physicians.
Bishai DM; Ferris DG; Litaker MS
Med Decis Making; 2003; 23(6):463-70. PubMed ID: 14672106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Re: An alternative cost-effectiveness analysis of ThinPrep in the Australian setting.
Llewellyn H
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2006 Feb; 46(1):67. PubMed ID: 16441702
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. The ultimate goal? It depends.
Brown E
Physician Exec; 1996 Oct; 22(10):50-2. PubMed ID: 10162496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Evaluation of costs and benefits of advances in cytologic technology. International Academy of Cytology Task Force summary. Diagnostic Cytology Towards the 21st Century: An International Expert Conference and Tutorial.
Melamed MR; Hutchinson ML; Kaufman EA; Schechter CB; Garner D; Kobler TP; Krieger PA; Reith A; Schenck U
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):69-75. PubMed ID: 9479325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Cost-effectiveness of 3 methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing.
Brown AD; Garber AM
JAMA; 1999 Jan; 281(4):347-53. PubMed ID: 9929088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. De novo establishment and cost-effectiveness of Papanicolaou cytology screening services in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
Levin CE; Sellors JW
Cancer; 2002 Apr; 94(8):2312-4; author reply 2314-6. PubMed ID: 12001136
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Expensive care - a rationale for economic evaluations in intensive care.
Higgins AM; Pettila V; Bellomo R; Harris AH; Nichol AD; Morrison SS
Crit Care Resusc; 2010 Mar; 12(1):62-6. PubMed ID: 20196716
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. The cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening for low-income elderly women.
Mandelblatt JS; Fahs MC
JAMA; 1988 Apr 22-29; 259(16):2409-13. PubMed ID: 3127608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. [Cost-effectiveness of a cervical cancer screening programme in the Algarve region, Portugal].
Novoa Vázquez RM
Rev Esp Salud Publica; 2004; 78(3):341-53. PubMed ID: 15293955
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Cost analysis of PAPNET-assisted vs. conventional Pap smear evaluation in primary screening of cervical smears.
Meerding WJ; Doornewaard H; van Ballegooijen M; Bos A; van der Graaf Y; van den Tweel JG; van der Schouw YT; Habbema JD
Acta Cytol; 2001; 45(1):28-35. PubMed ID: 11213501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Has the ThinPrep method of cervical screening maintained its improvement over conventional smears in terms of specimen adequacy?
Treacy A; Reynolds J; Kay EW; Leader M; Grace A
Diagn Cytopathol; 2009 Apr; 37(4):239-40. PubMed ID: 19217033
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
