231 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17624160)
41. [Results of the Leiden mass screening for cervix uteri carcinoma; the 'young' (24-34 years) versus the 'old' (35-54 years) group of women].
Boon ME; de Graaff Guilloud-Gentenaar JC; Beck S
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1990 Aug; 134(32):1545-9. PubMed ID: 2392176
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. [The Pap test revisited].
Broso P; Pagani E
Minerva Ginecol; 1991 Mar; 43(3):71-85. PubMed ID: 2057106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. [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]
44. Cervical cancer screening in Serbia.
Kesić V; Jovićević-Bekić A; Vujnović M
Coll Antropol; 2007 Apr; 31 Suppl 2():31-6. PubMed ID: 17598502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Cervical screening history in patients with early stage carcinoma of the cervix.
Abed Z; O'Leary M; Hand K; Flannelly G; Lenehan P; Murphy J; Foley M
Ir Med J; 2006 May; 99(5):140-2. PubMed ID: 16892918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. [Follow-up of non-negative cervical cytological smears in the county of Funen].
Dahl MB; Hølund B; Sørensen B; Ahrons S; Grinsted P; Poulsen EF
Ugeskr Laeger; 1998 Sep; 160(40):5798-801. PubMed ID: 9782760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Evaluation of a combined screening programme for breast, cervical and colorectal cancers in France.
Billette de Villemeur A; Exbrayat C; Garnier A; Ancelle-Park R; Ferley JP; Jestin C
Eur J Cancer Prev; 2007 Feb; 16(1):26-35. PubMed ID: 17220701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Let's talk about smear tests: social marketing for the National Cervical Screening Programme.
Bethune GR; Lewis HJ
Public Health; 2009 Sep; 123 Suppl 1():e17-22. PubMed ID: 19740498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. [Evaluation of the follow-up of women aged 50-74 years after cervical cytological Ascus abnormalities in cancer screening: adherence to clinical practice guidelines in Isere, France; 1991-2000].
Billette-de-Villemeur A; Poncet F; Garnier A; Marron J; Le Marc'hadour F; Morens A; Rouault-Plantaz V; Ney M; Exbrayat C
Gynecol Obstet Fertil; 2009 Oct; 37(10):787-95. PubMed ID: 19782628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. 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]
51. Epidemiology of human papillomavirus infection and cervical cancer and future perspectives in Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan.
Tay SK; Ngan HY; Chu TY; Cheung AN; Tay EH
Vaccine; 2008 Aug; 26 Suppl 12():M60-70. PubMed ID: 18945415
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. [Cervical smears taken by physicians' assistants are of lesser quality than smears taken by family physicians, but almost as good as the national average].
Voordijk-van der Ben MH; Buntinx F
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2000 Jan; 144(2):74-7. PubMed ID: 10674106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Comparison of visual inspection and Papanicolau (PAP) smears for cervical cancer screening in Honduras: should PAP smears be abandoned?
Perkins RB; Langrish SM; Stern LJ; Figueroa J; Simon CJ
Trop Med Int Health; 2007 Sep; 12(9):1018-25. PubMed ID: 17875013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Patients with cervical cancer: why did screening not prevent these cases?
de Bie RP; Vergers-Spooren HC; Massuger LF; Siebers AG; Salet-van der Pol MR; Vedder JE; Melchers WJ; Bulten J; Bekkers RL
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2011 Jul; 205(1):64.e1-7. PubMed ID: 21481838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Promotion of cervical screening among nonattendees: a partial cost-effectiveness analysis.
Oscarsson MG; Benzein EG; Wijma BE; Carlsson PG
Eur J Cancer Prev; 2007 Dec; 16(6):559-63. PubMed ID: 18090130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Social inequality in Pap smear coverage: identifying under-users of cervical cancer screening in Argentina.
Arrossi S; Ramos S; Paolino M; Sankaranarayanan R
Reprod Health Matters; 2008 Nov; 16(32):50-8. PubMed ID: 19027622
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. The impact of the National Cervical Screening Programme on the presentation of cancer of the cervix in Canterbury.
Simcock B; Sykes P; Laney M
N Z Med J; 2001 Aug; 114(1138):378-80. PubMed ID: 11589435
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Current techniques in screening for cervical cancer in Spain: updated recommendations.
Puig-Tintoré LM; Torné A; Alonso I
Gynecol Oncol; 2008 Sep; 110(3 Suppl 2):S8-S10. PubMed ID: 18606440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. [Two cytological methods for screening for cervical cancer].
Kirschner B; Simonsen K; Junge J
Ugeskr Laeger; 2008 May; 170(22):1933-7. PubMed ID: 18513478
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. [Cervical cancer screening campaign in Doubs: evaluation of the first three years of the pilot program].
Gautier CP; Monnet E; Meslans Y
Sante Publique; 2000 May; 12 Spec No():37-43. PubMed ID: 10989627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
