48 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19373953)
1. Cost-effectiveness of strategies to increase screening coverage for cervical cancer in Spain: the CRIVERVA study.
Trapero-Bertran M; Acera Pérez A; de Sanjosé S; Manresa Domínguez JM; Rodríguez Capriles D; Rodriguez Martinez A; Bonet Simó JM; Sanchez Sanchez N; Hidalgo Valls P; Díaz Sanchis M
BMC Public Health; 2017 Feb; 17(1):194. PubMed ID: 28196467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Race and health: An invitation to the front line.
Giannelli FR; Rockson LE
JAAPA; 2022 Jan; 35(1):61-62. PubMed ID: 34939592
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. Cervical cancer screening program of Paraná: cost-effective model in a developing country.
Bleggi Torres LF; Werner B; Totsugui J; Collaço LM; Araújo SR; Huçulak M; Boza EJ; Fischer RM; De Laat L; Sobbania LC; Raggio A
Diagn Cytopathol; 2003 Jul; 29(1):49-54. PubMed ID: 12827718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. How do women who choose not to participate in population-based cervical cancer screening reason about their decision?
Blomberg K; Ternestedt BM; Törnberg S; Tishelman C
Psychooncology; 2008 Jun; 17(6):561-9. PubMed ID: 17886262
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Management of women with abnormal cervical cytology: treatment patterns and associated costs in England and Wales.
Martin-Hirsch P; Rash B; Martin A; Standaert B
BJOG; 2007 Apr; 114(4):408-15. PubMed ID: 17378815
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Prevention of cervical cancer with screening programme in Branicevo District and cost-effectiveness analysis adjusted to the territory of the Republic of Serbia.
Perovic S
J BUON; 2009; 14(1):93-6. PubMed ID: 19373953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Population screening for uterine cervix cancer: the negative effects of insufficient knowledge as to what is normal and abnormal].
van der Graaf Y
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2002 Aug; 146(34):1569-71. PubMed ID: 12224477
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cervical cancer: how often--and why--to screen older women.
Mandelblatt JS; Phillips RN
Geriatrics; 1996 Jun; 51(6):45-8; quiz 49. PubMed ID: 8647475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Clinical inquiries. Should we discontinue Pap smear screening in women aged>65 years?
Curran DR; Stigleman S; Neher JO
J Fam Pract; 2004 Apr; 53(4):308-10. PubMed ID: 15068776
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. [Economic aspects of using selected biomarkers in cervical cancer screening].
Rokita W; Kedzia W; Gaj A; Kulig B
Ginekol Pol; 2010 Oct; 81(10):774-7. PubMed ID: 21117306
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
