440 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18824618)
1. Cost-effectiveness estimates for antenatal HIV testing in the Netherlands.
Rozenbaum MH; Verweel G; Folkerts DK; Dronkers F; van den Hoek JA; Hartwig NG; de Groot R; Postma MJ
Int J STD AIDS; 2008 Oct; 19(10):668-75. PubMed ID: 18824618
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Pharmaco-economic evaluation of mandatory HIV-screening in pregnancy; a cost-efficacy analysis in Amsterdam].
Postma MJ; van den Hoek JA; Beck EJ; Heeg B; Jager JC; Coutinho RA
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2000 Apr; 144(16):749-54. PubMed ID: 10812443
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Economic evaluation of HIV screening in pregnant women attending antenatal clinics in India.
Kumar M; Birch S; Maturana A; Gafni A
Health Policy; 2006 Jul; 77(2):233-43. PubMed ID: 16126300
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce vertical HIV transmission from pregnant women who have not received prenatal care.
Mrus JM; Tsevat J
Med Decis Making; 2004; 24(1):30-9. PubMed ID: 15005952
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Preventing perinatal transmission of HIV--costs and effectiveness of a recommended intervention.
Gorsky RD; Farnham PG; Straus WL; Caldwell B; Holtgrave DR; Simonds RJ; Rogers MF; Guinan ME
Public Health Rep; 1996; 111(4):335-41. PubMed ID: 8711101
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Cost-effectiveness of screening for HIV in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy.
Sanders GD; Bayoumi AM; Sundaram V; Bilir SP; Neukermans CP; Rydzak CE; Douglass LR; Lazzeroni LC; Holodniy M; Owens DK
N Engl J Med; 2005 Feb; 352(6):570-85. PubMed ID: 15703422
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Routine prenatal screening for HIV in a low-prevalence setting.
Patrick DM; Money DM; Forbes J; Dobson SR; Rekart ML; Cook DA; Middleton PJ; Burdge DR
CMAJ; 1998 Oct; 159(8):942-7. PubMed ID: 9834719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Cost-effectiveness of universal compared with voluntary screening for human immunodeficiency virus among pregnant women in Chicago.
Immergluck LC; Cull WL; Schwartz A; Elstein AS
Pediatrics; 2000 Apr; 105(4):E54. PubMed ID: 10742375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Would universal antenatal screening for HIV infection be cost-effective in a setting of very low prevalence? Modelling the data for Australia.
Graves N; Walker DG; McDonald AM; Kaldor JM; Ziegler JB
J Infect Dis; 2004 Jul; 190(1):166-74. PubMed ID: 15195257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Voluntary screening program for HIV in pregnancy. Cost effectiveness.
Rivera-Alsina ME; Rivera CC; Rollene N; Kirby RS; Ayres A; McNamara M
J Reprod Med; 2001 Mar; 46(3):243-8. PubMed ID: 11304866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Universal antenatal human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing programme is cost-effective despite a low HIV prevalence in Hong Kong.
Lee PM; Wong KH
Hong Kong Med J; 2007 Jun; 13(3):199-207. PubMed ID: 17548908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The comparison of the performance of two screening strategies identifying newly-diagnosed HIV during pregnancy.
Boer K; Smit C; van der Flier M; de Wolf F;
Eur J Public Health; 2011 Oct; 21(5):632-7. PubMed ID: 21051473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Who should be screened for HIV infection? A cost-effectiveness analysis.
McCarthy BD; Wong JB; Muñoz A; Sonnenberg FA
Arch Intern Med; 1993 May; 153(9):1107-16. PubMed ID: 8481077
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [The costs of treating HIV-infected children in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, 1996-1997].
Giraudon I; Leroy V; Msellati P; Elenga N; Ramon R; Welffens-Ekra C; Dabis F
Sante; 1999; 9(5):277-81. PubMed ID: 10657769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Antenatal HIV screening in Europe: a review of policies.
Deblonde J; Claeys P; Temmerman M
Eur J Public Health; 2007 Oct; 17(5):414-8. PubMed ID: 17875579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Economic impact of treatment of HIV-positive pregnant women and their newborns with zidovudine. Implications for HIV screening.
Mauskopf JA; Paul JE; Wichman DS; White AD; Tilson HH
JAMA; 1996 Jul; 276(2):132-8. PubMed ID: 8656505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [HIV screening of pregnant women in Norway].
Reinar LM; Haegeland A; Tollefsen MF; Bjørkeng W
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2000 Jan; 120(2):221-4. PubMed ID: 10851920
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [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]
19. Routine screening for HIV infection in booked antenatal women: how justified in developing countries?
Ibekwe PC; Ikeme AC
Afr J Reprod Health; 2001 Aug; 5(2):7-9. PubMed ID: 12471908
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. HIV counselling and testing of pregnant women attending antenatal clinics in Botswana, 2001.
Rakgoasi SD
J Health Popul Nutr; 2005 Mar; 23(1):58-65. PubMed ID: 15884753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
