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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

136 related items for PubMed ID: 10417017

  • 21.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 22.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 23. Validation of data collection for the HEDIS performance measure on chlamydia screening in an MCO.
    Wei F, Walsh CM.
    Am J Manag Care; 2003 Sep; 9(9):585-93. PubMed ID: 14527104
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 24.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 25.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 26.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 27.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 28. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 29.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 30. Chlamydia screening is not cost-effective at low participation rates: evidence from a repeated register-based implementation study in The Netherlands.
    de Wit GA, Over EA, Schmid BV, van Bergen JE, van den Broek IV, van der Sande MA, Welte R, Op de Coul EL, Kretzschmar ME.
    Sex Transm Infect; 2015 Sep; 91(6):423-9. PubMed ID: 25759475
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 31.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 32. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 33.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 34.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 35. Summaries for patients. The cost-effectiveness of screening for Chlamydia in women 15 to 29 years of age.
    Ann Intern Med; 2004 Oct 05; 141(7):I29. PubMed ID: 15466762
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 36. Cost effectiveness of home based population screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in the UK: economic evaluation of chlamydia screening studies (ClaSS) project.
    Roberts TE, Robinson S, Barton PM, Bryan S, McCarthy A, Macleod J, Egger M, Low N.
    BMJ; 2007 Aug 11; 335(7614):291. PubMed ID: 17656504
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 37.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 38. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review of the economic evaluations and modelling.
    Roberts TE, Robinson S, Barton P, Bryan S, Low N, Chlamydia Screening Studies (ClaSS) Group.
    Sex Transm Infect; 2006 Jun 11; 82(3):193-200; discussion 201. PubMed ID: 16731666
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 39. Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in pregnant women in Martinique.
    Chout RT, Vaton S, Duval-Violton D, Leguyader-Despres P, Orfila J.
    Sex Transm Dis; 1995 Jun 11; 22(4):221-7. PubMed ID: 7482104
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 40.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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