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 *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9297316)

  • 21. Major improvements in cost effectiveness of screening women for Chlamydia trachomatis using pooled urine specimens and high performance testing.
    Morré SA; Welte R; Postma MJ
    Sex Transm Infect; 2002 Feb; 78(1):74-5. PubMed ID: 11872874
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. [The chlamydia epidemics is continuing--what should be done?].
    Paavonen J
    Duodecim; 2002; 118(13):1369-73. PubMed ID: 12239883
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Factors influencing women's views on the acceptability and experience of being opportunistically screened for Chlamydia trachomatis in hospital settings.
    McMillan LE; Norman JE; Murray K; Reid ME
    Int J STD AIDS; 2006 Dec; 17(12):821-5. PubMed ID: 17212859
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Overestimation of complication rates in evaluations of Chlamydia trachomatis screening programmes--implications for cost-effectiveness analyses.
    van Valkengoed IG; Morré SA; van den Brule AJ; Meijer CJ; Bouter LM; Boeke AJ
    Int J Epidemiol; 2004 Apr; 33(2):416-25. PubMed ID: 15082651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. [Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infection: which group should be targeted and at what price?].
    van Vloten WA
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 Mar; 143(13):652-3. PubMed ID: 10321294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Universal screening or prophylactic treatment for Chlamydia trachomatis infection among women seeking induced abortions: which strategy is more cost-effective?
    Chen S; Li J; van den Hoek A
    Sex Transm Dis; 2007 Apr; 34(4):230-6. PubMed ID: 17414068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Evaluation of the leukocyte esterase test (LET) as pre-screening test to reduce costs for national population-based Chlamydia trachomatis screening programs.
    Morré SA; Spaargaren J; Veldhuijzen IK; Postma MJ; van Bergen JE; van Bergen JE; Broer J; Coenen AJ; Götz HM; de Groot F; Hoebe CJ; Richardus JH; van Schaik DT; Veldhuijzen IK; Verhooren M;
    J Adolesc Health; 2006 Apr; 38(4):332-3; author reply 333-4. PubMed ID: 16549289
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. The program cost and cost-effectiveness of screening men for Chlamydia to prevent pelvic inflammatory disease in women.
    Gift TL; Gaydos CA; Kent CK; Marrazzo JM; Rietmeijer CA; Schillinger JA; Dunne EF
    Sex Transm Dis; 2008 Nov; 35(11 Suppl):S66-75. PubMed ID: 18830137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Cost-utility of repeated screening for Chlamydia trachomatis.
    de Vries R; van Bergen JE; de Jong-van den Berg LT; Postma MJ;
    Value Health; 2008; 11(2):272-4. PubMed ID: 18380639
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Screening programmes for chlamydial infection: when will we ever learn?
    Low N
    BMJ; 2007 Apr; 334(7596):725-8. PubMed ID: 17413173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Modelling the impact of opportunistic screening on the sequelae and public healthcare costs of infection with Chlamydia trachomatis in Australian women.
    Ward B; Rodger AJ; Jackson TJ
    Public Health; 2006 Jan; 120(1):42-9. PubMed ID: 16271271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. The natural course of asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis infections: 45% clearance and no development of clinical PID after one-year follow-up.
    Morré SA; van den Brule AJ; Rozendaal L; Boeke AJ; Voorhorst FJ; de Blok S; Meijer CJ
    Int J STD AIDS; 2002 Dec; 13 Suppl 2():12-8. PubMed ID: 12537719
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Pooling of urine specimens allows accurate and cost-effective genetic detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in Lithuania and other low-resource countries.
    Butylkina R; Juseviciute V; Kasparaviciene G; Vagoras A; Pagirskas E; Unemo M; Domeika M
    Scand J Infect Dis; 2007; 39(3):209-12. PubMed ID: 17366049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Sexuality and health: the hidden costs of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis.
    Duncan B; Hart G
    BMJ; 1999 Apr; 318(7188):931-3. PubMed ID: 10102865
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Optimising Chlamydia testing within constrained funding.
    Morris AJ; McCarthy M
    N Z Med J; 2006 Jul; 119(1238):U2093. PubMed ID: 16868586
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Prediction of costs, effectiveness, and disease control of a population-based program using home sampling for diagnosis of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis Infections.
    Andersen B; Gundgaard J; Kretzschmar M; Olsen J; Welte R; Oster-Gaard L
    Sex Transm Dis; 2006 Jul; 33(7):407-15. PubMed ID: 16601656
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Is screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infection cost effective?
    Paavonen J
    Genitourin Med; 1997 Apr; 73(2):103-4. PubMed ID: 9215090
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Screening at-risk groups for Chlamydia trachomatis.
    Practitioner; 1989 Nov; 233(1479):1518. PubMed ID: 2622831
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. [Chlamydia trachomatis].
    Rasmussen KL
    Ugeskr Laeger; 1996 Apr; 158(18):2560-1. PubMed ID: 8686014
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

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

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.