1851 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18445828)
1. Screening-preventable cervical cancer risks: evidence from a nationwide audit in Sweden.
Andrae B; Kemetli L; Sparén P; Silfverdal L; Strander B; Ryd W; Dillner J; Törnberg S
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2008 May; 100(9):622-9. PubMed ID: 18445828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Cervical cancer in women with comprehensive health care access: attributable factors in the screening process.
Leyden WA; Manos MM; Geiger AM; Weinmann S; Mouchawar J; Bischoff K; Yood MU; Gilbert J; Taplin SH
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2005 May; 97(9):675-83. PubMed ID: 15870438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Risk of invasive cervical cancer in relation to management of abnormal Pap smear results.
Silfverdal L; Kemetli L; Andrae B; Sparén P; Ryd W; Dillner J; Strander B; Törnberg S
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2009 Aug; 201(2):188.e1-7. PubMed ID: 19560117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Routine audit of large-scale cervical cancer screening programs.
Cuzick J
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2008 May; 100(9):605-6. PubMed ID: 18445817
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. A longitudinal Swedish study on screening for squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma: evidence of effectiveness and overtreatment.
Gunnell AS; Ylitalo N; Sandin S; Sparén P; Adami HO; Ripatti S
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2007 Dec; 16(12):2641-8. PubMed ID: 18086769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The cytological screening turned out effective also for adenocarcinoma: a population-based case-control study in Trento, Italy.
Crocetti E; Battisti L; Betta A; Palma PD; Paci E; Piffer S; Pojer A; Polla E; Zappa M
Eur J Cancer Prev; 2007 Dec; 16(6):564-7. PubMed ID: 18090131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Risk of invasive cervical cancer after Pap smears: the protective effect of multiple negatives.
Coldman A; Phillips N; Kan L; Matisic J; Benedet L; Towers L
J Med Screen; 2005; 12(1):7-11. PubMed ID: 15814014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The pap-smear history of women with invasive cervical squamous carcinoma. A case-control study from Sweden.
Andersson-Ellström A; Seidal T; Grannas M; Hagmar B
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2000 Mar; 79(3):221-6. PubMed ID: 10716304
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Risk of invasive cervical cancer after three consecutive negative Pap smears.
Coldman A; Phillips N; Kan L; Matisic J; Benedet L; Towers L
J Med Screen; 2003; 10(4):196-200. PubMed ID: 14738657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Worldwide human papillomavirus etiology of cervical adenocarcinoma and its cofactors: implications for screening and prevention.
Castellsagué X; Díaz M; de Sanjosé S; Muñoz N; Herrero R; Franceschi S; Peeling RW; Ashley R; Smith JS; Snijders PJ; Meijer CJ; Bosch FX;
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2006 Mar; 98(5):303-15. PubMed ID: 16507827
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Cervical cancer screening in medically underserved California Latina and non-Latina women: effect of age and regularity of Pap testing.
Howell LP; Gurusinghe S; Tabnak F; Sciortino S
Cancer Detect Prev; 2009; 32(5-6):372-9. PubMed ID: 19264426
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Evaluation of cervical cancer screening program at a rural community of South Africa.
Hoque M; Hoque E; Kader SB
East Afr J Public Health; 2008 Aug; 5(2):111-6. PubMed ID: 19024420
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. A case-control study of the protective benefit of cervical screening against invasive cervical cancer in NSW women.
Yang B; Morrell S; Zuo Y; Roder D; Tracey E; Jelfs P
Cancer Causes Control; 2008 Aug; 19(6):569-76. PubMed ID: 18286380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Reasons women do not attend screening for cervical cancer: a population-based study in Sweden.
Eaker S; Adami HO; Sparén P
Prev Med; 2001 Jun; 32(6):482-91. PubMed ID: 11394952
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Improvement in protection against adenocarcinoma of the cervix resulting from participation in cervical screening.
Mitchell H; Hocking J; Saville M
Cancer; 2003 Dec; 99(6):336-41. PubMed ID: 14681940
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Clinical impact of quality assurance in an organized cervical screening program.
Andrae B; Smith P
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 1999 May; 78(5):429-35. PubMed ID: 10326890
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
