321 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18290913)
1. 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]
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. Effect of screening for cancer in the Nordic countries on deaths, cost and quality of life up to the year 2017.
Hristova L; Hakama M
Acta Oncol; 1997; 36 Suppl 9():1-60. PubMed ID: 9143316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Cost-effectiveness of primary HPV screening for cervical cancer in Germany--a decision analysis.
Sroczynski G; Schnell-Inderst P; Mühlberger N; Lang K; Aidelsburger P; Wasem J; Mittendorf T; Engel J; Hillemanns P; Petry KU; Krämer A; Siebert U
Eur J Cancer; 2011 Jul; 47(11):1633-46. PubMed ID: 21482103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Cost-effectiveness of cervical-cancer screening in five developing countries.
Goldie SJ; Gaffikin L; Goldhaber-Fiebert JD; Gordillo-Tobar A; Levin C; Mahé C; Wright TC;
N Engl J Med; 2005 Nov; 353(20):2158-68. PubMed ID: 16291985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The health and economic impact of cervical cancer screening and human papillomavirus vaccination in kidney transplant recipients.
Wong G; Howard K; Webster A; Chapman JR; Craig JC
Transplantation; 2009 Apr; 87(7):1078-91. PubMed ID: 19352131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Screen-and-treat strategies for albuminuria to prevent cardiovascular and renal disease: cost-effectiveness of nationwide and targeted interventions based on analysis of cohort data from the Netherlands.
Boersma C; Gansevoort RT; Pechlivanoglou P; Visser ST; van Toly FF; de Jong-van den Berg LT; de Jong PE; Postma MJ;
Clin Ther; 2010 Jun; 32(6):1103-21. PubMed ID: 20637965
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Cost-effectiveness of a cervical screening program with human papillomavirus vaccine.
Sopina E; Ashton T
Int J Technol Assess Health Care; 2011 Oct; 27(4):290-7. PubMed ID: 21936972
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Cost-effectiveness analysis of liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening.
Bidus MA; Maxwell GL; Kulasingam S; Rose GS; Elkas JC; Chernofsky M; Myers ER
Obstet Gynecol; 2006 May; 107(5):997-1005. PubMed ID: 16648402
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Cost-effectiveness of screening for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis due to chronic hepatitis C.
Lin OS; Keeffe EB; Sanders GD; Owens DK
Aliment Pharmacol Ther; 2004 Jun; 19(11):1159-72. PubMed ID: 15153169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Cost-effectiveness of capsule endoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer.
Hassan C; Zullo A; Winn S; Morini S
Endoscopy; 2008 May; 40(5):414-21. PubMed ID: 18302080
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The German cervical cancer screening model: development and validation of a decision-analytic model for cervical cancer screening in Germany.
Siebert U; Sroczynski G; Hillemanns P; Engel J; Stabenow R; Stegmaier C; Voigt K; Gibis B; Hölzel D; Goldie SJ
Eur J Public Health; 2006 Apr; 16(2):185-92. PubMed ID: 16469759
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
