120 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3924157)
1. A case-control study of cervical cancer screening in north east Scotland.
Macgregor JE; Moss SM; Parkin DM; Day NE
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed); 1985 May; 290(6481):1543-6. PubMed ID: 3924157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A case-control study of the protective benefit of cervical screening against invasive cervical cancer in NSW women.
Yang B; Morrell S; Zuo Y; Roder D; Tracey E; Jelfs P
Cancer Causes Control; 2008 Aug; 19(6):569-76. PubMed ID: 18286380
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The effectiveness of cervical screening: a population-based case-control study.
van der Graaf Y; Zielhuis GA; Peer PG; Vooijs PG
J Clin Epidemiol; 1988; 41(1):21-6. PubMed ID: 3335869
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Risk of cervical cancer following negative smears in Maribo County, Denmark, 1966-1982.
Lynge E; Poll P
IARC Sci Publ; 1986; (76):69-86. PubMed ID: 3570417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Rationale for stopping cervical screening in women over 50.
Van Wijngaarden WJ; Duncan ID
BMJ; 1993 Apr; 306(6883):967-71. PubMed ID: 8490472
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Cervical cancer screening in north-east Scotland.
Macgregor JE; Moss S; Parkin DM; Day NE
IARC Sci Publ; 1986; (76):25-36. PubMed ID: 3570409
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Estimating the efficacy of screening by auditing smear histories of women with and without cervical cancer. The National Co-ordinating Network for Cervical Screening Working Group.
Sasieni PD; Cuzick J; Lynch-Farmery E
Br J Cancer; 1996 Apr; 73(8):1001-5. PubMed ID: 8611418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A case-control study of the effectiveness of cervical cancer screening in Osaka, Japan.
Sobue T; Suzuki T; Hashimoto S; Yokoi N; Fujimoto I
Jpn J Cancer Res; 1988 Dec; 79(12):1269-75. PubMed ID: 3148596
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Improvement in protection against adenocarcinoma of the cervix resulting from participation in cervical screening.
Mitchell H; Hocking J; Saville M
Cancer; 2003 Dec; 99(6):336-41. PubMed ID: 14681940
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Screening for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in Dundee and Angus 1962-81 and its relation with invasive cervical cancer.
Duguid HL; Duncan ID; Currie J
Lancet; 1985 Nov; 2(8463):1053-6. PubMed ID: 2865526
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Cervical cytology screening history of women diagnosed with adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: a case-control study.
Mitchell H; Hocking J; Saville M
Acta Cytol; 2004; 48(5):595-600. PubMed ID: 15471249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Predicting mortality from cervical cancer after negative smear test results.
van Oortmarssen GJ; Habbema JD; van Ballegooijen M
BMJ; 1992 Aug; 305(6851):449-51. PubMed ID: 1392957
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A centralised cytology screening programme for cervical cancer in Florence.
Palli D; Carli S; Cecchini S; Venturini A; Piazzesi G; Buiatti E
J Epidemiol Community Health; 1990 Mar; 44(1):47-51. PubMed ID: 2348148
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Cervical Cancer Screening and Incidence by Age: Unmet Needs Near and After the Stopping Age for Screening.
White MC; Shoemaker ML; Benard VB
Am J Prev Med; 2017 Sep; 53(3):392-395. PubMed ID: 28473240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The agreement between self-reported cervical smear abnormalities and screening programme records.
Canfell K; Beral V; Green J; Cameron R; Baker K; Brown A
J Med Screen; 2006; 13(2):72-5. PubMed ID: 16792828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. [Case-control study of the effectiveness of mass screening in reducing invasive cervical cancer].
Makino H; Sato S; Yajima A; Fukao A
Nihon Sanka Fujinka Gakkai Zasshi; 1991 Sep; 43(9):1226-32. PubMed ID: 1919184
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Screening for squamous cervical cancer: duration of low risk after negative results of cervical cytology and its implication for screening policies. IARC Working Group on evaluation of cervical cancer screening programmes.
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed); 1986 Sep; 293(6548):659-64. PubMed ID: 3092971
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Trends in incidence of and mortality from invasive cancer of the uterine cervix in Scotland (1975-1994).
Walker JJ; Brewster D; Gould A; Raab GM
Public Health; 1998 Nov; 112(6):373-8. PubMed ID: 9883033
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
