BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8528539)

  • 1. Prospects for newer technologies in cervical cancer screening programmes.
    Hailey DM; Lea R
    J Qual Clin Pract; 1995 Sep; 15(3):139-45. PubMed ID: 8528539
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Clinical and cost implications of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: the impact of test sensitivity.
    Hutchinson ML; Berger BM; Farber FL
    Am J Manag Care; 2000 Jul; 6(7):766-80. PubMed ID: 11067374
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Cervical cancer screening and associated treatment costs in France].
    Bergeron C; Breugelmans JG; Bouée S; Lorans C; Bénard S; Rémy V
    Gynecol Obstet Fertil; 2006 Nov; 34(11):1036-42. PubMed ID: 17070085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Willingness to pay for new Papanicolaou test technologies.
    Raab SS; Grzybicki DM; Hart AR; Kiely S; Andrew-JaJa C; Scioscia E
    Am J Clin Pathol; 2002 Apr; 117(4):524-33. PubMed ID: 11939725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Cost-effectiveness of organized versus opportunistic cervical cytology screening in Hong Kong.
    Kim JJ; Leung GM; Woo PP; Goldie SJ
    J Public Health (Oxf); 2004 Jun; 26(2):130-7. PubMed ID: 15284314
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. De novo establishment and cost-effectiveness of Papanicolaou cytology screening services in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
    Suba EJ; Nguyen CH; Nguyen BD; Raab SS;
    Cancer; 2001 Mar; 91(5):928-39. PubMed ID: 11251944
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. An alternative cost effectiveness analysis of ThinPrep in the Australian setting.
    Neville AM; Quinn MA
    Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2005 Aug; 45(4):289-94. PubMed ID: 16029294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Advances in cervical screening technology.
    Stoler MH
    Mod Pathol; 2000 Mar; 13(3):275-84. PubMed ID: 10757338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Cost effectiveness of cervical cancer screening strategies in Tunisia].
    Hsaïri M; Fakhfakh R; Ghyoula M; Ben Abdallah M; Achour N
    Tunis Med; 2000 Oct; 78(10):557-61. PubMed ID: 11190738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Integrating human papillomavirus vaccination in cervical cancer control programmes.
    Franco EL; Coutlée F; Ferenczy A
    Public Health Genomics; 2009; 12(5-6):352-61. PubMed ID: 19684447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Liquid-based cytology for cervical cancer screening.
    Bentz JS
    Expert Rev Mol Diagn; 2005 Nov; 5(6):857-71. PubMed ID: 16255628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Cost-effectiveness of cervical-cancer screening in developing countries.
    Suba EJ; Frable WJ; Raab SS
    N Engl J Med; 2006 Apr; 354(14):1535-6; author reply 1535-6. PubMed ID: 16598056
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Costs and problems in cervix cancer screening are considerably underestimated].
    Bistoletti P
    Lakartidningen; 2000 Aug; 97(32-33):3506-8. PubMed ID: 11037597
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Cervical cancer prevention for all the world's women: genuine promise resides in skilled quality management rather than novel screening approaches.
    Suba EJ; Donnelly AD; Furia LM; Huynh ML; Raab SS;
    Diagn Cytopathol; 2007 Mar; 35(3):187-91. PubMed ID: 17304532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Cervical cancer screening program of Paraná: cost-effective model in a developing country.
    Bleggi Torres LF; Werner B; Totsugui J; Collaço LM; Araújo SR; Huçulak M; Boza EJ; Fischer RM; De Laat L; Sobbania LC; Raggio A
    Diagn Cytopathol; 2003 Jul; 29(1):49-54. PubMed ID: 12827718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Why women still die from cervical cancer.
    Masood S
    J Fla Med Assoc; 1997; 84(6):379-83. PubMed ID: 9379163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Cost-effectiveness of adding human papilloma virus testing to a managed care cervical cancer screening program.
    Lonky NM; Hunter MI; Sadeghi M; Edwards G; Bajamundi K; Monk BJ
    J Low Genit Tract Dis; 2007 Oct; 11(4):258-64. PubMed ID: 17917570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effect of screening for cancer in the Nordic countries on deaths, cost and quality of life up to the year 2017.
    Hristova L; Hakama M
    Acta Oncol; 1997; 36 Suppl 9():1-60. PubMed ID: 9143316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Increasing women's participation in Pap smear screening in Australia--how can we tell if the national policy is effective?
    Shelley J; Street A
    Aust Health Rev; 1992; 15(2):190-9. PubMed ID: 10119050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Screening, prevention and treatment of cervical cancer -- a global and regional generalized cost-effectiveness analysis.
    Ginsberg GM; Edejer TT; Lauer JA; Sepulveda C
    Vaccine; 2009 Oct; 27(43):6060-79. PubMed ID: 19647813
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.