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 *

73 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22951560)

  • 21. [Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infection: which target group and at what price?].
    Postma MJ; van den Hoek JA
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 Jun; 143(23):1237-8. PubMed ID: 10428675
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Punching above their weight: males, reinfection, and the limited success of Chlamydia screening programs.
    Greer AL; Fisman DN
    Sex Transm Dis; 2009 Jan; 36(1):9-10. PubMed ID: 19077920
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. [Chlamydia. Time for screening of sexually active young people?].
    Petersen CS
    Ugeskr Laeger; 2001 Aug; 163(34):4530. PubMed ID: 11530551
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. 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]  

  • 25. Opportunistic screening for Chlamydia: Microbiological input is essential in Chlamydia screening programmes.
    Tong CY; Dunn H; Lewis DA
    BMJ; 2003 Aug; 327(7409):290; author reply 290. PubMed ID: 12896957
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. National screening programme for chlamydia exists in England.
    Fenton KA; LaMontagne DS; Randall S
    BMJ; 2004 Jul; 329(7458):172. PubMed ID: 15258085
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. [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]  

  • 28. A paradox: overscreening of older women for Chlamydia while too few younger women are being tested.
    Berman SM; Satterwhite CL
    Sex Transm Dis; 2011 Feb; 38(2):130-2. PubMed ID: 21173722
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Use of mathematical modeling to inform Chlamydia screening policy decisions.
    Low N; Heijne JC; Kretzschmar M
    J Infect Dis; 2009 Mar; 199(5):767-8; author reply 768-9. PubMed ID: 19210168
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Management of cases testing positive for gonococcal infection in a community-based chlamydia screening programme.
    Downing J; Cook PA; Madden HC; Phillips-Howard PA; Higgins SP; Bellis MA
    Sex Transm Infect; 2010 Nov; 86(6):474-7. PubMed ID: 20940161
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Chlamydia trachomatis.
    McSherry J
    Br J Gen Pract; 1995 Apr; 45(393):219-20. PubMed ID: 7612331
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Only 15% of young men in England were tested for chlamydia last year despite recommendations.
    Wise J
    BMJ; 2014 Jun; 348():g4121. PubMed ID: 24948665
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

  • 34. [Decreased incidence of Chlamydia infection in a primary care district, thanks to screening and reinforced contact tracing].
    Järhult B
    Lakartidningen; 1991 Nov; 88(45):3819-21. PubMed ID: 1943401
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Establishing the National Chlamydia Screening Programme in England: results from the first full year of screening.
    LaMontagne DS; Fenton KA; Randall S; Anderson S; Carter P
    Sex Transm Infect; 2004 Oct; 80(5):335-41. PubMed ID: 15459399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Poor uptake of self-sample collection kits for Chlamydia testing outside primary care.
    Rose SB; Lawton BA; Bromhead C; MacDonald EJ; Elley CR
    Aust N Z J Public Health; 2010 Oct; 34(5):517-20. PubMed ID: 21040182
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Chlamydia trachomatis genital infections--United States, 1995.
    Can Commun Dis Rep; 1998 Jan; 24(1):5-8. PubMed ID: 9494223
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Managing genital chlamydia trachomatis infection in Scotland: targeted opportunistic testing or a screening programme?
    Clutterbuck DJ
    Health Bull (Edinb); 2001 Nov; 59(6):396-404. PubMed ID: 12661390
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. The English National Chlamydia Screening Programme: variations in positivity in 2007/2008.
    Simms I; Talebi A; Rhia J; Horner P; French RS; Sarah R; Macintosh M
    Sex Transm Dis; 2009 Aug; 36(8):522-7. PubMed ID: 19455079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Modelling the healthcare costs of an opportunistic chlamydia screening programme.
    Adams EJ; LaMontagne DS; Johnston AR; Pimenta JM; Fenton KA; Edmunds WJ
    Sex Transm Infect; 2004 Oct; 80(5):363-70. PubMed ID: 15459403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.