98 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22665576)
1. Age-specific effectiveness of the Finnish cervical cancer screening programme.
Lönnberg S; Anttila A; Luostarinen T; Nieminen P
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2012 Aug; 21(8):1354-61. PubMed ID: 22665576
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Mortality audit of the Finnish cervical cancer screening program.
Lönnberg S; Nieminen P; Luostarinen T; Anttila A
Int J Cancer; 2013 May; 132(9):2134-40. PubMed ID: 22987437
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Impact of organized and opportunistic Pap testing on the risk of cervical cancer in young women - A case-control study from Finland.
Makkonen P; Heinävaara S; Sarkeala T; Anttila A
Gynecol Oncol; 2017 Dec; 147(3):601-606. PubMed ID: 28942994
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The relationship of human papillomavirus-related cervical tumors to cigarette smoking, oral contraceptive use, and prior herpes simplex virus type 2 infection.
Daling JR; Madeleine MM; McKnight B; Carter JJ; Wipf GC; Ashley R; Schwartz SM; Beckmann AM; Hagensee ME; Mandelson MT; Galloway DA
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 1996 Jul; 5(7):541-8. PubMed ID: 8827359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Effect of a mass screening program on the risk of cervical cancer.
Louhivuori K
Cancer Detect Prev; 1991; 15(6):471-5. PubMed ID: 1782637
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Trends in cervical squamous cell carcinoma incidence in 13 European countries: changing risk and the effects of screening.
Bray F; Loos AH; McCarron P; Weiderpass E; Arbyn M; Møller H; Hakama M; Parkin DM
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2005 Mar; 14(3):677-86. PubMed ID: 15767349
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Screening history in women with cervical cancer in a Danish population-based screening program.
Kirschner B; Poll S; Rygaard C; Wåhlin A; Junge J
Gynecol Oncol; 2011 Jan; 120(1):68-72. PubMed ID: 21035171
[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. Efficacy of screening in preventing cervical cancer among older women.
Kamineni A; Weinmann S; Shy KK; Glass AG; Weiss NS
Cancer Causes Control; 2013 Sep; 24(9):1653-60. PubMed ID: 23744043
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of the nationwide cervical screening programme in Thailand: a case-control study.
Kasinpila C; Promthet S; Vatanasapt P; Sasieni P; Parkin DM
J Med Screen; 2011; 18(3):147-53. PubMed ID: 22045824
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Type 1 and type 2 cervical carcinomas: some cervical cancers are more difficult to prevent with screening.
Austin RM; Zhao C
Cytopathology; 2012 Feb; 23(1):6-12. PubMed ID: 22243288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Papanicolaou smear screening interval and risk of cervical cancer.
Shy K; Chu J; Mandelson M; Greer B; Figge D
Obstet Gynecol; 1989 Dec; 74(6):838-43. PubMed ID: 2586947
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. The impact of a two- versus three-yearly cervical screening interval recommendation on cervical cancer incidence and mortality: an analysis of trends in Australia, New Zealand, and England.
Simonella L; Canfell K
Cancer Causes Control; 2013 Sep; 24(9):1727-36. PubMed ID: 23832659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Prevalence and determinants of cervical cytology use in an urban sample of Portuguese women.
Alves C; Alves L; Lunet N
Eur J Cancer Prev; 2009 Nov; 18(6):482-8. PubMed ID: 19734793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Self-sampling and reminder letters increase participation in the Finnish cervical cancer screening programme].
Virtanen A; Nieminen P; Malila N; Luostarinen T; Anttila A
Duodecim; 2013; 129(16):1709-17. PubMed ID: 24069641
[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. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
