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 *

89 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8173410)

  • 21. Cervical cancer risk levels in Turkey and compliance to the national cervical cancer screening standard.
    Açikgöz A; Ergör G
    Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2011; 12(4):923-7. PubMed ID: 21790227
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The fallacy of the screening interval for cervical smears.
    Boyce JG; Fruchter RG; Romanzi L; Sillman FH; Maiman M
    Obstet Gynecol; 1990 Oct; 76(4):627-32. PubMed ID: 2216192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Commentary: trials versus models in appraising screening programmes.
    Royston G
    BMJ; 1999 Feb; 318(7180):360-1. PubMed ID: 10075469
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Extension of organised cervical cancer screening programmes in Italy and their process indicators: 2008 activity.
    Ronco G; Giubilato P; Naldoni C; Zorzi M; Anghinoni E; Scalisi A; Dalla Palma P; Zanier L; Barca A; Angeloni C; Gaimo MD; Maglietta R; Mancini E; Pizzuti R; Iossa A; Segnan N; Zappa M
    Epidemiol Prev; 2010; 34(5-6 Suppl 4):35-51. PubMed ID: 21220836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 'Organised' cervical screening 45 years on: How consistent are organised screening practices?
    Williams JH; Carter SM; Rychetnik L
    Eur J Cancer; 2014 Nov; 50(17):3029-38. PubMed ID: 25282406
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Organization of screening in technically advanced countries: Iceland.
    Geirsson G
    IARC Sci Publ; 1986; (76):239-50. PubMed ID: 3570408
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Evaluation of a pilot study for breast and cervical cancer screening with Bradford's minority ethnic women; a community development approach, 1991-93.
    Kernohan EE
    Br J Cancer Suppl; 1996 Sep; 29():S42-6. PubMed ID: 8782798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical Self-Sampling to Improve Routine Cervical Cancer Screening: The Importance of Respondent Screening History and Compliance.
    Burger EA; Sy S; Nygård M; Kim JJ
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2017 Jan; 26(1):95-103. PubMed ID: 27624639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Adherence to cervical and breast cancer programs is crucial to improving screening performance.
    Mauad EC; Nicolau SM; Moreira LF; Haikel RL; Longatto-Filho A; Baracat EC
    Rural Remote Health; 2009; 9(3):1241. PubMed ID: 19778158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Effectiveness of a call/recall system in improving compliance with cervical cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial.
    Buehler SK; Parsons WL
    CMAJ; 1997 Sep; 157(5):521-6. PubMed ID: 9294390
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. [Outcome and future of mass screening for uterine cervical cancer].
    Noda K; Tejima K
    Gan No Rinsho; 1983 May; 29(6):483-7. PubMed ID: 6410103
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Introduction. The diffusion of screening programmes in Italy: 2008.
    Zappa M; Grazzini G; Naldoni C; Paci E; Segnan N; Federici A
    Epidemiol Prev; 2010; 34(5-6 Suppl 4):5-8. PubMed ID: 21220833
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Factors affecting non attendance in screening programmes.
    Murphy G; Daly L; Kelleher CC; Clarke A
    Ir Med J; 2008 Mar; 101(3):92. PubMed ID: 18540551
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Problems of cervical cancer screening programmes.
    Rang EH; Tod ED
    J R Coll Gen Pract; 1988 Jun; 38(311):267-9. PubMed ID: 3255814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Screening for cancer of uterine cervix and approaches adopted in India.
    Murthy NS; Mathew A
    Indian J Cancer; 1999; 36(2-4):154-62. PubMed ID: 10921220
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Implementing the national invasive cervical cancer audit: a local perspective.
    Moss EL; Pearmain P; Askew S; Owen G; Reynolds TM; Prabakar IM; Douce G; Parkes J; Menon V; Todd RW; Redman CW
    BJOG; 2010 Oct; 117(11):1411-6. PubMed ID: 20716252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. [Inequalities in cervical screening practices].
    Döbrőssy L; Kovács A; Budai A
    Orv Hetil; 2015 Jun; 156(24):955-63. PubMed ID: 26051131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Are health education meetings effective in recruiting women in cervical screening programmes? An innovative and inexpensive intervention from the island of Crete.
    Vivilaki V; Romanidou A; Theodorakis P; Lionis C
    Rural Remote Health; 2005; 5(2):376. PubMed ID: 15946107
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. [Costs and effects of alternative screening programs against cervical cancer].
    Gyrd-Hansen D; Hølund B; Andersen P
    Ugeskr Laeger; 1996 Aug; 158(35):4912-5. PubMed ID: 8801698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Evaluation of a call programme for cervical cytology screening in women aged 50-60.
    Robertson AJ; Reid GS; Stoker CA; Bissett C; Waugh N; Fenton I; Rowan J; Halkerston R
    BMJ; 1989 Jul; 299(6692):163-6. PubMed ID: 2504360
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.