BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8853970)

  • 21. PAPNET-assisted rescreening of cervical smears: cost and accuracy compared with a 100% manual rescreening strategy.
    O'Leary TJ; Tellado M; Buckner SB; Ali IS; Stevens A; Ollayos CW
    JAMA; 1998 Jan; 279(3):235-7. PubMed ID: 9438746
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. The costs, clinical benefits, and cost-effectiveness of screening for cervical cancer in HIV-infected women.
    Goldie SJ; Weinstein MC; Kuntz KM; Freedberg KA
    Ann Intern Med; 1999 Jan; 130(2):97-107. PubMed ID: 10068381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Evaluation of costs and benefits of advances in cytologic technology. International Academy of Cytology Task Force summary. Diagnostic Cytology Towards the 21st Century: An International Expert Conference and Tutorial.
    Melamed MR; Hutchinson ML; Kaufman EA; Schechter CB; Garner D; Kobler TP; Krieger PA; Reith A; Schenck U
    Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):69-75. PubMed ID: 9479325
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Screening for cervical cancer.
    Eddy DM
    Ann Intern Med; 1990 Aug; 113(3):214-26. PubMed ID: 2115753
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. [Cost effectiveness analysis of screening strategies for cervical cancer in Tunisia].
    Lazaar HB; Aounallah-Skhiri H; Oueslati F; Frikha H; Achour N; Hsairi M
    East Mediterr Health J; 2010 Jun; 16(6):602-8. PubMed ID: 20799586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. [Health economics analysis of cervical cancer screening].
    Boncz I; Sebestyén A; Pál M; Sándor J; Ember I
    Orv Hetil; 2003 Apr; 144(15):713-7. PubMed ID: 12774432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Towards effective cervical screening.
    Havelock C; Havelock P
    Practitioner; 1994 Apr; 238(1537):296-301. PubMed ID: 8183816
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Cost effectiveness of cervical cancer screening for the elderly.
    Fahs MC; Mandelblatt J; Schechter C; Muller C
    Ann Intern Med; 1992 Sep; 117(6):520-7. PubMed ID: 1503355
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Cervical screening: what is the point?
    Sasieni P
    Lancet; 1995 Jul; 346(8969):244; author reply 246-7. PubMed ID: 7616810
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Comparative cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccines in the prevention of cervical cancer in Malaysia.
    Ezat SW; Aljunid S
    Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2010; 11(4):943-51. PubMed ID: 21133606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Cervical screening in older women.
    Ogilvie D
    Cytopathology; 2002 Oct; 13(5):333. PubMed ID: 12421452
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The cost-effectiveness of cervical screening.
    Smith WJ
    Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol; 1999 Feb; 11(1):83-5. PubMed ID: 10047969
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The cost-effectiveness of cervical-vaginal rescreening.
    Raab SS
    Am J Clin Pathol; 1997 Nov; 108(5):525-36. PubMed ID: 9353091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [Partial re-screening of all negative smears. A method of quality control of pathology department concerning smear screening against cervix cancer].
    Jensen ML; Dybdahl H; Svanholm H
    Ugeskr Laeger; 2000 May; 162(21):3024-7. PubMed ID: 10850190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Screening for cancer of the cervix in elderly women.
    Fletcher A
    Lancet; 1990 Jan; 335(8681):97-9. PubMed ID: 1967429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Pap smears, elderly women, and Medicare.
    Power EJ
    Cancer Invest; 1993; 11(2):164-8. PubMed ID: 8462016
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Is proficiency testing in cervical cytology proficient?
    Herbert A
    J Clin Pathol; 1997 Jul; 50(7):536-7. PubMed ID: 9306928
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. [Costs of population cervical cancer screening program in Poland between 2007-2009].
    Spaczyński M; Karowicz-Bilinska A; Kedzia W; Molińska-Glura M; Seroczyński P; Januszek-Michalecka L; Rokita W; Nowak-Markwitz E
    Ginekol Pol; 2010 Oct; 81(10):750-6. PubMed ID: 21117303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Cervical-cancer screening: attendance and cost-effectiveness.
    Koopmanschap MA; van Oortmarssen GJ; van Agt HM; van Ballegooijen M; Habbema JD; Lubbe KT
    Int J Cancer; 1990 Mar; 45(3):410-5. PubMed ID: 2106499
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.