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 *

124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9842959)

  • 21. Cost effectiveness of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a review of published studies.
    Honey E; Augood C; Templeton A; Russell I; Paavonen J; Mårdh PA; Stary A; Stray-Pedersen B
    Sex Transm Infect; 2002 Dec; 78(6):406-12. PubMed ID: 12473799
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. [Chlamydia trachomatis infections--a time for action?].
    Mylonas I; Kirschner W; Weissenbacher T; Gingelmaier A; Weissenbacher ER; Friese K
    Dtsch Med Wochenschr; 2007 May; 132(21):1170-6. PubMed ID: 17506013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae among asymptomatic women attending the Capital Health region clinics in Kuwait.
    Al-Sweih NA; Khan S; Rotimi VO
    Sex Transm Dis; 2011 Sep; 38(9):793-7. PubMed ID: 21844731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in women 15 to 29 years of age: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
    Hu D; Hook EW; Goldie SJ
    Ann Intern Med; 2004 Oct; 141(7):501-13. PubMed ID: 15466767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Estimation of the burden of disease and costs of genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in Canada.
    Tuite AR; Jayaraman GC; Allen VG; Fisman DN
    Sex Transm Dis; 2012 Apr; 39(4):260-7. PubMed ID: 22421691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The future of chlamydia screening.
    Tobin JM; Harindra V; Tucker LJ
    Sex Transm Infect; 2000 Aug; 76(4):233-4. PubMed ID: 11026875
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Commentary: Chlamydia trachomatis screening: what are we trying to do?
    Peterman TA; Gottlieb SL; Berman SM
    Int J Epidemiol; 2009 Apr; 38(2):449-51. PubMed ID: 19174542
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Cost effectiveness analysis of a population based screening programme for asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis infections in women by means of home obtained urine specimens.
    van Valkengoed IG; Postma MJ; Morré SA; van den Brule AJ; Meijer CJ; Bouter LM; Boeke AJ
    Sex Transm Infect; 2001 Aug; 77(4):276-82. PubMed ID: 11463928
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. Comparing cost effectiveness of screening women for Chlamydia trachomatis in systematic and opportunistic approaches.
    Postma MJ; Welte R; van den Hoek JA; Morré SA
    Sex Transm Infect; 2002 Feb; 78(1):73-4. PubMed ID: 11872873
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Epidemiology of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women and the cost-effectiveness of screening.
    Land JA; Van Bergen JE; Morré SA; Postma MJ
    Hum Reprod Update; 2010; 16(2):189-204. PubMed ID: 19828674
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Commentary: evidence synthesis and evidence consistency.
    Ades AE
    Int J Epidemiol; 2004 Apr; 33(2):426-7. PubMed ID: 15082652
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. The cost-effectiveness of screening men for Chlamydia trachomatis: a review of the literature.
    Gift TL; Blake DR; Gaydos CA; Marrazzo JM
    Sex Transm Dis; 2008 Nov; 35(11 Suppl):S51-60. PubMed ID: 18520977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infection: which target group and at what price?].
    Postma MJ; van den Hoek JA
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 Jun; 143(23):1237-8. PubMed ID: 10428675
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Has the effectiveness of a single chlamydia test in preventing pelvic inflammatory disease over 12 months been overestimated?
    Hay PE; Pittrof RU
    Womens Health (Lond); 2010 Sep; 6(5):627-30. PubMed ID: 20887160
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. [Opportunistic screening for genital infections with Chlamydia trachomatis in sexually active population of Amsterdam. II. Cost-effectiveness analysis of screening women].
    Postma MJ; Welte R; van den Hoek JA; van Doornum GJ; Coutinho RA; Jager JC
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1999 Mar; 143(13):677-81. PubMed ID: 10321301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Cost-effectiveness of screening women at moderate risk for genital infections caused by Chlamydia trachomatis.
    Nettleman MD; Jones RB
    JAMA; 1988 Jul; 260(2):207-13. PubMed ID: 3133496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. 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]  

  • 39. A Swedish cost-effectiveness analysis of community-based Chlamydia trachomatis PCR testing of postal urine specimens obtained at home.
    Novak DP; Lindholm L; Jonsson M; Karlsson RB
    Scand J Public Health; 2004; 32(5):324-32. PubMed ID: 15513664
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Managing genital chlamydia trachomatis infection in Scotland: targeted opportunistic testing or a screening programme?
    Clutterbuck DJ
    Health Bull (Edinb); 2001 Nov; 59(6):396-404. PubMed ID: 12661390
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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