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 *

129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9842959)

  • 1. Screening asymptomatic women for Chlamydia trachomatis: abstract and commentary.
    Handsfield HH
    JAMA; 1998 Nov; 280(20):1800-1. PubMed ID: 9842959
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The cost and cost-effectiveness of opportunistic screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in Ireland.
    Gillespie P; O'Neill C; Adams E; Turner K; O'Donovan D; Brugha R; Vaughan D; O'Connell E; Cormican M; Balfe M; Coleman C; Fitzgerald M; Fleming C
    Sex Transm Infect; 2012 Apr; 88(3):222-8. PubMed ID: 22213681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Chlamydia trachomatis infection among women 26 to 39 years of age in the United States, 1999 to 2010.
    Torrone EA; Geisler WM; Gift TL; Weinstock HS
    Sex Transm Dis; 2013 Apr; 40(4):335-7. PubMed ID: 23486500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Chlamydia trachomatis: common misperceptions and misunderstandings.
    Stevens-Simon C; Sheeder J
    J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol; 2005 Aug; 18(4):231-43. PubMed ID: 16171726
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Screening tests to detect Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections--2002.
    Johnson RE; Newhall WJ; Papp JR; Knapp JS; Black CM; Gift TL; Steece R; Markowitz LE; Devine OJ; Walsh CM; Wang S; Gunter DC; Irwin KL; DeLisle S; Berman SM
    MMWR Recomm Rep; 2002 Oct; 51(RR-15):1-38; quiz CE1-4. PubMed ID: 12418541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Cost-effectiveness of widespread screening for Chlamydia trachomatis.
    Postma MJ; Welte R; Morré SA
    Expert Opin Pharmacother; 2002 Oct; 3(10):1443-50. PubMed ID: 12387690
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Relative cost-effectiveness of different tests for Chlamydia trachomatis.
    Jackson B
    Ann Intern Med; 2005 Feb; 142(4):308; author reply 308-9. PubMed ID: 15710968
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in asymptomatic women attending family planning clinics. A cost-effectiveness analysis of three strategies.
    Howell MR; Quinn TC; Gaydos CA
    Ann Intern Med; 1998 Feb; 128(4):277-84. PubMed ID: 9471930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The silent epidemic of Chlamydia: what are we missing here?
    Sanfilippo JS
    J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol; 2008 Oct; 21(5):231-2. PubMed ID: 18794016
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Reduction in unnecessary Chlamydia screening among older women at title X-funded family planning sites following a structural intervention--San Francisco, 2009.
    Bernstein KT; Marcus JL; Snell A; Liska S; Rauch L; Philip SS
    Sex Transm Dis; 2011 Feb; 38(2):127-9. PubMed ID: 21139515
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis Infections in Women.
    Wiesenfeld HC
    N Engl J Med; 2017 Feb; 376(8):765-773. PubMed ID: 28225683
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Chlamydia screening: expanding the scope.
    Stamm WE
    Ann Intern Med; 2004 Oct; 141(7):570-2. PubMed ID: 15466776
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A population based dynamic approach for estimating the cost effectiveness of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis.
    Welte R; Kretzschmar M; van den Hoek JA; Postma MJ
    Sex Transm Infect; 2003 Oct; 79(5):426. PubMed ID: 14573849
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis; the Amsterdam experience.
    Bleker OP
    Minerva Ginecol; 2000 Dec; 52(12 Suppl 1):97-9. PubMed ID: 11526697
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Laboratory aspects of screening men for Chlamydia trachomatis in the new millennium.
    Gaydos CA; Ferrero DV; Papp J
    Sex Transm Dis; 2008 Nov; 35(11 Suppl):S45-50. PubMed ID: 18449069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Opportunistic screening for genital infections with Chlamydia trachomatis in sexually active population of Amsterdam. II. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening women].
    Ruitenberg EN
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 May; 143(19):1012. PubMed ID: 10368724
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Summaries for patients. The cost-effectiveness of screening for Chlamydia in women 15 to 29 years of age.
    Ann Intern Med; 2004 Oct; 141(7):I29. PubMed ID: 15466762
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Cost effectiveness analysis of a population based screening programme for asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women.
    Gupta M; Hernon M; Gokhale R; Ghosh AK
    Sex Transm Infect; 2002 Feb; 78(1):76. PubMed ID: 11872877
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The impact of natural history parameters on the cost-effectiveness of Chlamydia trachomatis screening strategies.
    Hu D; Hook EW; Goldie SJ
    Sex Transm Dis; 2006 Jul; 33(7):428-36. PubMed ID: 16572038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Screening for asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis infection: cost-effectiveness favorable at a minimum prevalence rate of 3% or more].
    Habets PC
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2001 Mar; 145(10):499-501. PubMed ID: 11268916
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.