171 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16449119)
1. Cost-effectiveness of extending cervical cancer screening intervals among women with prior normal pap tests.
Kulasingam SL; Myers ER; Lawson HW; McConnell KJ; Kerlikowske K; Melnikow J; Washington AE; Sawaya GF
Obstet Gynecol; 2006 Feb; 107(2 Pt 1):321-8. PubMed ID: 16449119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening for lung cancer with low dose spiral CT (computed tomography) in the Australian setting.
Manser R; Dalton A; Carter R; Byrnes G; Elwood M; Campbell DA
Lung Cancer; 2005 May; 48(2):171-85. PubMed ID: 15829317
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Report from the CDC. Pap test intervals used by physicians serving low-income women through the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.
Cooper CP; Saraiya M; McLean TA; Hannan J; Liesmann JM; Rose SW; Lawson HW
J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2005 Oct; 14(8):670-8. PubMed ID: 16232098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The cost-effectiveness of cervical screening in Australia: what is the impact of screening at different intervals or over a different age range?
Anderson R; Haas M; Shanahan M
Aust N Z J Public Health; 2008 Feb; 32(1):43-52. PubMed ID: 18290913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Cost-effectiveness of a tailored intervention to increase screening in HMO women overdue for Pap test and mammography services.
Lynch FL; Whitlock EP; Valanis BG; Smith SK
Prev Med; 2004 Apr; 38(4):403-11. PubMed ID: 15020173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of nationwide cervical cancer screening in Taiwan.
Koong SL; Yen AM; Chen TH
J Med Screen; 2006; 13 Suppl 1():S44-7. PubMed ID: 17227642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Cost-effectiveness of organized versus opportunistic cervical cytology screening in Hong Kong.
Kim JJ; Leung GM; Woo PP; Goldie SJ
J Public Health (Oxf); 2004 Jun; 26(2):130-7. PubMed ID: 15284314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cost-effectiveness of adding human papilloma virus testing to a managed care cervical cancer screening program.
Lonky NM; Hunter MI; Sadeghi M; Edwards G; Bajamundi K; Monk BJ
J Low Genit Tract Dis; 2007 Oct; 11(4):258-64. PubMed ID: 17917570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Cost-effectiveness of extended adjuvant letrozole therapy after 5 years of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy in postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer.
Delea TE; Karnon J; Smith RE; Johnston SR; Brandman J; Sung JC; Gross PE
Am J Manag Care; 2006 Jul; 12(7):374-86. PubMed ID: 16834524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. De novo establishment and cost-effectiveness of Papanicolaou cytology screening services in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
Suba EJ; Nguyen CH; Nguyen BD; Raab SS;
Cancer; 2001 Mar; 91(5):928-39. PubMed ID: 11251944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. When does quality-adjusting life-years matter in cost-effectiveness analysis?
Chapman RH; Berger M; Weinstein MC; Weeks JC; Goldie S; Neumann PJ
Health Econ; 2004 May; 13(5):429-36. PubMed ID: 15127423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Modeling cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening in Hungary.
Vokó Z; Nagyjánosi L; Margitai B; Kövi R; Tóth Z; László D; Kaló Z
Value Health; 2012 Jan; 15(1):39-45. PubMed ID: 22264970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The program cost and cost-effectiveness of screening men for Chlamydia to prevent pelvic inflammatory disease in women.
Gift TL; Gaydos CA; Kent CK; Marrazzo JM; Rietmeijer CA; Schillinger JA; Dunne EF
Sex Transm Dis; 2008 Nov; 35(11 Suppl):S66-75. PubMed ID: 18830137
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Clinical and cost implications of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: the impact of test sensitivity.
Hutchinson ML; Berger BM; Farber FL
Am J Manag Care; 2000 Jul; 6(7):766-80. PubMed ID: 11067374
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Reducing ovarian cancer mortality through screening: Is it possible, and can we afford it?
Havrilesky LJ; Sanders GD; Kulasingam S; Myers ER
Gynecol Oncol; 2008 Nov; 111(2):179-87. PubMed ID: 18722004
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Cost-effectiveness analysis of endometrial cancer prevention strategies for obese women.
Kwon JS; Lu KH
Obstet Gynecol; 2008 Jul; 112(1):56-63. PubMed ID: 18591308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Cost effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering drugs: a review of the evidence.
Thorvik E; Aursnes I; Kristiansen IS; Waaler HT
Wien Klin Wochenschr; 1996; 108(8):234-43. PubMed ID: 8686314
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Cost-effectiveness of a community-based screening programme for chronic atrial fibrillation in Japan.
Maeda K; Shimbo T; Fukui T
J Med Screen; 2004; 11(2):97-102. PubMed ID: 15153326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
