222 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22767614)
1. Effectiveness of yearly, register based screening for chlamydia in the Netherlands: controlled trial with randomised stepped wedge implementation.
van den Broek IV; van Bergen JE; Brouwers EE; Fennema JS; Götz HM; Hoebe CJ; Koekenbier RH; Kretzschmar M; Over EA; Schmid BV; Pars LL; van Ravesteijn SM; van der Sande MA; de Wit GA; Low N; Op de Coul EL
BMJ; 2012 Jul; 345():e4316. PubMed ID: 22767614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Rationale, design, and results of the first screening round of a comprehensive, register-based, Chlamydia screening implementation programme in the Netherlands.
van Bergen JE; Fennema JS; van den Broek IV; Brouwers EE; de Feijter EM; Hoebe CJ; Koekenbier RH; de Coul EL; van Ravesteijn SM; Götz HM
BMC Infect Dis; 2010 Oct; 10():293. PubMed ID: 20925966
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Evaluation design of a systematic, selective, internet-based, Chlamydia screening implementation in the Netherlands, 2008-2010: implications of first results for the analysis.
van den Broek IV; Hoebe CJ; van Bergen JE; Brouwers EE; de Feijter EM; Fennema JS; Götz HM; Koekenbier RH; van Ravesteijn SM; de Coul EL
BMC Infect Dis; 2010 Apr; 10():89. PubMed ID: 20374635
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Who participates in the Dutch Chlamydia screening? A study on demographic and behavioral correlates of participation and positivity.
Op de Coul EL; Götz HM; van Bergen JE; Fennema JS; Hoebe CJ; Koekenbier RH; Pars LL; van Ravesteijn SM; van der Sande MA; van den Broek IV
Sex Transm Dis; 2012 Feb; 39(2):97-103. PubMed ID: 22249297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Epidemiological, social, diagnostic and economic evaluation of population screening for genital chlamydial infection.
Low N; McCarthy A; Macleod J; Salisbury C; Campbell R; Roberts TE; Horner P; Skidmore S; Sterne JA; Sanford E; Ibrahim F; Holloway A; Patel R; Barton PM; Robinson SM; Mills N; Graham A; Herring A; Caul EO; Davey Smith G; Hobbs FD; Ross JD; Egger M;
Health Technol Assess; 2007 Mar; 11(8):iii-iv, ix-xii, 1-165. PubMed ID: 17311735
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Systematic selection of screening participants by risk score in a Chlamydia screening programme is feasible and effective.
van den Broek IV; Brouwers EE; Götz HM; van Bergen JE; Op de Coul EL; Fennema JS; Koekenbier RH; Pars LL; van Ravesteijn SM; Hoebe CJ
Sex Transm Infect; 2012 Apr; 88(3):205-11. PubMed ID: 22215696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Early screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in young women for primary prevention of pelvic inflammatory disease (i-Predict): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
Tamarelle J; Thiébaut ACM; Sabin B; Bébéar C; Judlin P; Fauconnier A; Rahib D; Méaude-Roufai L; Ravel J; Morré SA; de Barbeyrac B; Delarocque-Astagneau E;
Trials; 2017 Nov; 18(1):534. PubMed ID: 29132441
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The added value of chlamydia screening between 2008-2010 in reaching young people in addition to chlamydia testing in regular care; an observational study.
van Liere GA; Dukers-Muijrers NH; van Bergen JE; Götz HM; Stals F; Hoebe CJ
BMC Infect Dis; 2014 Nov; 14():612. PubMed ID: 25403312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Can we use postal surveys with anonymous testing to monitor chlamydia prevalence in young women in England? Pilot study incorporating randomised controlled trial of recruitment methods.
Woodhall SC; Nichols T; Alexander S; da Silva FC; Mercer CH; Ison C; Gill ON; Soldan K
Sex Transm Infect; 2015 Sep; 91(6):412-4. PubMed ID: 26294693
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Prediction of Chlamydia trachomatis infection to facilitate selective screening on population and individual level: a cross-sectional study of a population-based screening programme.
van Klaveren D; Götz HM; Op de Coul EL; Steyerberg EW; Vergouwe Y
Sex Transm Infect; 2016 Sep; 92(6):433-40. PubMed ID: 26843401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Opportunistic screening for genital infections with Chlamydia trachomatis among the sexually active population of Amsterdam. Il Over 90% participation and almost 5% prevalence].
van den Hoek JA; Mulder-Folkerts DK; Coutinho RA; Dukers NH; Buimer M; van Doornum GJ
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 Mar; 143(13):668-72. PubMed ID: 10321299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Screening for genital chlamydia infection.
Low N; Redmond S; Uusküla A; van Bergen J; Ward H; Andersen B; Götz H
Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2016 Sep; 9(9):CD010866. PubMed ID: 27623210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Chlamyweb Study II: a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of an online offer of home-based
Kersaudy-Rahib D; Lydié N; Leroy C; March L; Bébéar C; Arwidson P; de Barbeyrac B
Sex Transm Infect; 2017 May; 93(3):188-195. PubMed ID: 28377422
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Keeping participants on board: increasing uptake by automated respondent reminders in an Internet-based chlamydia screening in the Netherlands.
Dokkum NF; Koekenbier RH; van den Broek IV; van Bergen JE; Brouwers EE; Fennema JS; Götz HM; Hoebe CJ; Pars LL; van Ravesteijn SM; Op de Coul EL
BMC Public Health; 2012 Mar; 12():176. PubMed ID: 22404911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Chlamydia screening is not cost-effective at low participation rates: evidence from a repeated register-based implementation study in The Netherlands.
de Wit GA; Over EA; Schmid BV; van Bergen JE; van den Broek IV; van der Sande MA; Welte R; Op de Coul EL; Kretzschmar ME
Sex Transm Infect; 2015 Sep; 91(6):423-9. PubMed ID: 25759475
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effects of population based screening for Chlamydia infections in the Netherlands limited by declining participation rates.
Schmid BV; Over EA; van den Broek IV; Op de Coul EL; van Bergen JE; Fennema JS; Götz HM; Hoebe CJ; de Wit GA; van der Sande MA; Kretzschmar ME
PLoS One; 2013; 8(3):e58674. PubMed ID: 23527005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Uptake and population-level impact of expedited partner therapy (EPT) on Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae: the Washington State community-level randomized trial of EPT.
Golden MR; Kerani RP; Stenger M; Hughes JP; Aubin M; Malinski C; Holmes KK
PLoS Med; 2015 Jan; 12(1):e1001777. PubMed ID: 25590331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Systematic home screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infections of asymptomatic men and women in family practice by means of mail-in urine samples].
van Valkengoed IG; Boeke AJ; van den Brule AJ; Morré SA; Dekker JH; Meijer CJ; van Eijk JT
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 Mar; 143(13):672-6. PubMed ID: 10321300
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Exploring why a complex intervention piloted in general practices did not result in an increase in chlamydia screening and diagnosis: a qualitative evaluation using the fidelity of implementation model.
Allison R; Lecky DM; Town K; Rugman C; Ricketts EJ; Ockendon-Powell N; Folkard KA; Dunbar JK; McNulty CA
BMC Fam Pract; 2017 Mar; 18(1):43. PubMed ID: 28327096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Internet-based screening for sexually transmitted infections to reach nonclinic populations in the community: risk factors for infection in men.
Chai SJ; Aumakhan B; Barnes M; Jett-Goheen M; Quinn N; Agreda P; Whittle P; Hogan T; Jenkins WD; Rietmeijer CA; Gaydos CA
Sex Transm Dis; 2010 Dec; 37(12):756-63. PubMed ID: 20644498
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
