348 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19373953)
21. Promotion of cervical screening among nonattendees: a partial cost-effectiveness analysis.
Oscarsson MG; Benzein EG; Wijma BE; Carlsson PG
Eur J Cancer Prev; 2007 Dec; 16(6):559-63. PubMed ID: 18090130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. ["Cost-effectiveness" of cervical screening].
Kostova P
Akush Ginekol (Sofiia); 2007; 46(6):32-4. PubMed ID: 17974169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. [Health economics analysis of colorectal screening].
Boncz I; Sebestyén A; Dózsa C; Pál M; Sándor J; Palásti J; Betlehem J; Ember I
Magy Onkol; 2004; 48(2):111-5. PubMed ID: 15351803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Uptake of cervical cancer screening in The Netherlands is mainly influenced by women's beliefs about the screening and by the inviting organization.
Tacken MA; Braspenning JC; Hermens RP; Spreeuwenberg PM; van den Hoogen HJ; de Bakker DH; Groenewegen PP; Grol RP
Eur J Public Health; 2007 Apr; 17(2):178-85. PubMed ID: 16837520
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Cost-effectiveness of cervical-cancer screening in developing countries.
Suba EJ; Frable WJ; Raab SS
N Engl J Med; 2006 Apr; 354(14):1535-6; author reply 1535-6. PubMed ID: 16598056
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. [The 1996 revision of the Dutch cervical cancer screening programme: increased coverage, fewer repeat smears and less opportunistic screening].
Berkers LM; van Ballegooijen M; van Kemenade FJ; Rebolj M; Essink-Bot ML; Helmerhorst TJ; Habbema JD
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2007 Jun; 151(23):1288-94. PubMed ID: 17624160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. [Costs and effects of alternative screening programs against cervical cancer].
Gyrd-Hansen D; Hølund B; Andersen P
Ugeskr Laeger; 1996 Aug; 158(35):4912-5. PubMed ID: 8801698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Screening for cervical cancer: will women accept less?
Sirovich BE; Woloshin S; Schwartz LM
Am J Med; 2005 Feb; 118(2):151-8. PubMed ID: 15694900
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Cost effectiveness of population screening and rescreening for cervical cancer in the Netherlands.
Boon ME; de Graaff Guilloud JC
Acta Cytol; 1981; 25(5):539-42. PubMed ID: 6792845
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. [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]
32. An alternative cost effectiveness analysis of ThinPrep in the Australian setting.
Neville AM; Quinn MA
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2005 Aug; 45(4):289-94. PubMed ID: 16029294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Screening history of women in Malmö with invasive cervical cancer.
Lindqvist PG; Hellsten C; Rippe A
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2008 Mar; 137(1):77-83. PubMed ID: 17210219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 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]
35. Breast cancer screening policies in developing countries: a cost-effectiveness analysis for India.
Okonkwo QL; Draisma G; der Kinderen A; Brown ML; de Koning HJ
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2008 Sep; 100(18):1290-300. PubMed ID: 18780864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Low-cost technology for screening uterine cervical cancer.
Parashari A; Singh V; Sehgal A; Satyanarayana L; Sodhani P; Gupta MM
Bull World Health Organ; 2000; 78(8):964-7. PubMed ID: 10994279
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Evolution of multiple disease screening in Keelung: a model for community involvement in health interventions?
Wang PE; Wang TT; Chiu YH; Yen AM; Chen TH
J Med Screen; 2006; 13 Suppl 1():S54-8. PubMed ID: 17227644
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. 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]
39. De novo establishment and cost-effectiveness of Papanicolaou cytology screening services in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
Levin CE; Sellors JW
Cancer; 2002 Apr; 94(8):2312-4; author reply 2314-6. PubMed ID: 12001136
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Increasing women's participation in Pap smear screening in Australia--how can we tell if the national policy is effective?
Shelley J; Street A
Aust Health Rev; 1992; 15(2):190-9. PubMed ID: 10119050
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
