These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

96 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2109543)

  • 1. Is it cost-beneficial to screen adolescent males for chlamydia?
    Alexander ER
    Am J Public Health; 1990 May; 80(5):531-2. PubMed ID: 2109543
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening adolescent males for Chlamydia on admission to detention.
    Blake DR; Gaydos CA; Quinn TC
    Sex Transm Dis; 2004 Feb; 31(2):85-95. PubMed ID: 14743071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comparing cost effectiveness of screening women for Chlamydia trachomatis in systematic and opportunistic approaches.
    Postma MJ; Welte R; van den Hoek JA; Morré SA
    Sex Transm Infect; 2002 Feb; 78(1):73-4. PubMed ID: 11872873
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Cost effectiveness analysis of a population based screening programme for asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women.
    Gupta M; Hernon M; Gokhale R; Ghosh AK
    Sex Transm Infect; 2002 Feb; 78(1):76. PubMed ID: 11872877
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Major improvements in cost effectiveness of screening women for Chlamydia trachomatis using pooled urine specimens and high performance testing.
    Morré SA; Welte R; Postma MJ
    Sex Transm Infect; 2002 Feb; 78(1):74-5. PubMed ID: 11872874
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. [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]  

  • 7. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in adolescent males: a cost-based decision analysis.
    Randolph AG; Washington AE
    Am J Public Health; 1990 May; 80(5):545-50. PubMed ID: 2109544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Towards screening for Chlamydia trachomatis].
    Kolmos HJ
    Ugeskr Laeger; 1997 Aug; 159(34):5104-5. PubMed ID: 9297316
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Provider willingness to screen all sexually active adolescents for chlamydia.
    Boekeloo BO; Snyder MH; Bobbin M; Burstein GR; Conley D; Quinn TC; Zenilman JM
    Sex Transm Infect; 2002 Oct; 78(5):369-73. PubMed ID: 12407243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Practical applications of decision analysis.
    Nettleman MD
    Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol; 1988 May; 9(5):214-8. PubMed ID: 2967323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Chlamydia screening in the United Kingdom.
    Catchpole M; Robinson A; Temple A
    Sex Transm Infect; 2003 Feb; 79(1):3-4. PubMed ID: 12576603
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Is Europe ready for STD screening?
    Mårdh PA
    Genitourin Med; 1997 Apr; 73(2):96-8. PubMed ID: 9215088
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Cost-effectiveness of universal screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea in US jails.
    Kraut-Becher JR; Gift TL; Haddix AC; Irwin KL; Greifinger RB
    J Urban Health; 2004 Sep; 81(3):453-71. PubMed ID: 15273268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Spending money to save money.
    Mehta SD; Shahmanesh M; Zenilman JM
    Sex Transm Infect; 2003 Feb; 79(1):4-6. PubMed ID: 12576604
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [Screening for asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis infection: cost-effectiveness favorable at a minimum prevalence rate of 3% or more].
    Habets PC
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2001 Mar; 145(10):499-501. PubMed ID: 11268916
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review of the economic evaluations and modelling.
    Roberts TE; Robinson S; Barton P; Bryan S; Low N;
    Sex Transm Infect; 2006 Jun; 82(3):193-200; discussion 201. PubMed ID: 16731666
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [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]  

  • 18. [Potentials of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in Hungary: cost-benefit analysis].
    Nyári T; Mészáros G; Deák J; Nagy E; Kovács L
    Orv Hetil; 2000 Jul; 141(27):1511-6. PubMed ID: 10943109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Chlamydia trachomatis: common misperceptions and misunderstandings.
    Stevens-Simon C; Sheeder J
    J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol; 2005 Aug; 18(4):231-43. PubMed ID: 16171726
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.