231 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17624160)
1. [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]
2. [Less pap-2 results ('minor abnormalities') in the population screening for cervical cancer since the introduction of new guidelines in 1996].
Bos AB; van Ballegooijen M; van den Akker-van Marle ME; Habbema JD
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2002 Aug; 146(34):1586-90. PubMed ID: 12224483
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. [Follow up after an abnormal pap smear: time interval acceptable, nature of follow up leaves room for improvement].
Geertsen M; Bais AG; Beerman H; Helmerhorst TJ
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2003 Dec; 147(49):2430-4. PubMed ID: 14694554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [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]
6. [Follow-up not according to guidelines after an abnormal cervix smear].
Kreuger FA; Beerman H; Nijs HG; Wijnen JA
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1996 Apr; 140(15):833-6. PubMed ID: 8668277
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. [Screening for cervical cancer in the county of Funen. Status of 25 years of development and experiences].
Hølund B; Grinsted P
Ugeskr Laeger; 2006 May; 168(22):2163-6. PubMed ID: 16768956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. [Population screening for uterine cervix cancer: the negative effects of insufficient knowledge as to what is normal and abnormal].
van der Graaf Y
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2002 Aug; 146(34):1569-71. PubMed ID: 12224477
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Effective cervical cytology screening programmes in middle-income countries: the Chilean experience.
Sepúlveda C; Prado R
Cancer Detect Prev; 2005; 29(5):405-11. PubMed ID: 16188399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Mass screening for cervical cancer. A one-year registration of cervical cytological tests].
Bjørge T; Gunbjørud AB; Langmark F; Skare GB; Thoresen SO
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 1994 Jan; 114(3):341-5. PubMed ID: 8191435
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [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]
14. Cervical smears--an opportunity for disinvestment?
Spence MT; Woodman C; Collins S; Donnelly B; Desai M
Br J Gen Pract; 1996 Sep; 46(410):537-8. PubMed ID: 8917874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Monitoring the performance of New Zealand's National Cervical Screening Programme through data linkage.
Lewis H; Yeh LC; Almendral B; Neal H
N Z Med J; 2009 Oct; 122(1305):15-25. PubMed ID: 19966874
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Cervical cancer screening: A Slovenian experience.
Primic-Zakelj M; Repse-Fokter A
Coll Antropol; 2007 Apr; 31 Suppl 2():23-6. PubMed ID: 17600934
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Cervical cancer screening programme in Primorsko-Goranska County, Croatia--the results of the pilot study.
Vrdoljak-Mozetic D; Ostojić DV; Stemberger-Papić S; Janković S; Glibotić-Kresina H; Brncić-Fischer A; Benić-Salamon K
Coll Antropol; 2010 Mar; 34(1):225-32. PubMed ID: 20437641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Trend in cervical cancer screening in Spain (2003-2009) and predictors of adherence.
Martín-López R; Hernández-Barrera V; de Andres AL; Carrasco-Garrido P; de Miguel AG; Jimenez-Garcia R
Eur J Cancer Prev; 2012 Jan; 21(1):82-8. PubMed ID: 22129658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Cervical cancer screening for high risk women: is it possible? Results of a cervical cancer screening program in three suburban districts of Lyon].
Mignotte H; Perol D; Fontanière B; Nachury LP; Blanc-Jouvand A; Fouillat V; Chauvin F; Lasset C
Bull Cancer; 1999 Jun; 86(6):573-9. PubMed ID: 10417430
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The cervical cancer screening programme in Norway, 1992-2000: changes in Pap smear coverage and incidence of cervical cancer.
Nygård JF; Skare GB; Thoresen SØ
J Med Screen; 2002; 9(2):86-91. PubMed ID: 12133929
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
