129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18380639)
1. Cost-utility of repeated screening for Chlamydia trachomatis.
de Vries R; van Bergen JE; de Jong-van den Berg LT; Postma MJ;
Value Health; 2008; 11(2):272-4. PubMed ID: 18380639
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Systematic screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: estimating cost-effectiveness using dynamic modeling and Dutch data.
de Vries R; van Bergen JE; de Jong-van den Berg LT; Postma MJ;
Value Health; 2006; 9(1):1-11. PubMed ID: 16441519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Chlamydia screening is not cost-effective at low participation rates: evidence from a repeated register-based implementation study in The Netherlands.
de Wit GA; Over EA; Schmid BV; van Bergen JE; van den Broek IV; van der Sande MA; Welte R; Op de Coul EL; Kretzschmar ME
Sex Transm Infect; 2015 Sep; 91(6):423-9. PubMed ID: 25759475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Opportunistic screening for genital infections with Chlamydia trachomatis in sexually active population of Amsterdam. II. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening women].
Postma MJ; Welte R; van den Hoek JA; van Doornum GJ; Coutinho RA; Jager JC
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 Mar; 143(13):677-81. PubMed ID: 10321301
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The cost and cost-effectiveness of opportunistic screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in Ireland.
Gillespie P; O'Neill C; Adams E; Turner K; O'Donovan D; Brugha R; Vaughan D; O'Connell E; Cormican M; Balfe M; Coleman C; Fitzgerald M; Fleming C
Sex Transm Infect; 2012 Apr; 88(3):222-8. PubMed ID: 22213681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Estimation of the burden of disease and costs of genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in Canada.
Tuite AR; Jayaraman GC; Allen VG; Fisman DN
Sex Transm Dis; 2012 Apr; 39(4):260-7. PubMed ID: 22421691
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in women 15 to 29 years of age: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
Hu D; Hook EW; Goldie SJ
Ann Intern Med; 2004 Oct; 141(7):501-13. PubMed ID: 15466767
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Cost-effectiveness analysis of Chlamydia trachomatis screening in Dutch pregnant women.
Rours GI; Smith-Norowitz TA; Ditkowsky J; Hammerschlag MR; Verkooyen RP; de Groot R; Verbrugh HA; Postma MJ
Pathog Glob Health; 2016; 110(7-8):292-302. PubMed ID: 27958189
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Screening for asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis infection in pregnancy; cost-effectiveness favorable at a minimum prevalence rate of 3% or more].
Postma MJ; Bakker A; Welte R; van Bergen JE; van den Hoek JA; de Jong-van den Berg LT; Jager JC
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2000 Dec; 144(49):2350-4. PubMed ID: 11129971
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Health economic methodology illustrated with recent work on Chlamydia screening: the concept of extended dominance.
Postma MJ; de Vries R; Welte R; Edmunds WJ
Sex Transm Infect; 2008 Apr; 84(2):152-4. PubMed ID: 18077610
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. An evaluation of economics and acceptability of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infection, in women attending antenatal, abortion, colposcopy and family planning clinics in Scotland, UK.
Norman JE; Wu O; Twaddle S; Macmillan S; McMillan L; Templeton A; McKenzie H; Noone A; Allardice G; Reid M
BJOG; 2004 Nov; 111(11):1261-8. PubMed ID: 15521872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The cost effectiveness of opportunistic chlamydia screening in England.
Adams EJ; Turner KM; Edmunds WJ
Sex Transm Infect; 2007 Jul; 83(4):267-74; discussion 274-5. PubMed ID: 17475686
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [Opportunistic screening for genital infections with Chlamydia trachomatis in sexually active population of Amsterdam. II. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening women].
Ruitenberg EN
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 May; 143(19):1012. PubMed ID: 10368724
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The impact of natural history parameters on the cost-effectiveness of Chlamydia trachomatis screening strategies.
Hu D; Hook EW; Goldie SJ
Sex Transm Dis; 2006 Jul; 33(7):428-36. PubMed ID: 16572038
[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. [Opportunistic screening for genital infections with Chlamydia trachomatis among the sexually active population in Amsterdam. III. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening women and the role of reinfection and partner treatment].
Postma MJ; Welte R; van den Hoek JA; Jager JC; van Doornum GJ; Coutinho RA
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 Nov; 143(47):2383-5. PubMed ID: 10590778
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The utility and cost of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae screening of a male infertility population.
Domes T; Lo KC; Grober ED; Mullen JB; Mazzulli T; Jarvi K
Fertil Steril; 2012 Feb; 97(2):299-305. PubMed ID: 22192351
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The cost-effectiveness of screening men for Chlamydia trachomatis: a review of the literature.
Gift TL; Blake DR; Gaydos CA; Marrazzo JM
Sex Transm Dis; 2008 Nov; 35(11 Suppl):S51-60. PubMed ID: 18520977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Chlamydia screening for pregnant women aged 16-25 years attending an antenatal service: a cost-effectiveness study.
Ong JJ; Chen M; Hocking J; Fairley CK; Carter R; Bulfone L; Hsueh A
BJOG; 2016 Jun; 123(7):1194-202. PubMed ID: 26307516
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Cost effectiveness of home based population screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in the UK: economic evaluation of chlamydia screening studies (ClaSS) project.
Roberts TE; Robinson S; Barton PM; Bryan S; McCarthy A; Macleod J; Egger M; Low N
BMJ; 2007 Aug; 335(7614):291. PubMed ID: 17656504
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
