Similar articles

• [Screening for asymptomatic Chlamydia trachomatis infection in pregnancy; cost-effectiveness favorable at a minimum prevalence rate of 3% or more].

  Postma MJ, Bakker A, Welte R, van Bergen JE, van den Hoek JA, de Jong-van den Berg LT, Jager JC. Postma MJ, et al. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2000 Dec 2;144(49):2350-4. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2000. PMID: 11129971 Dutch.
• [Potentials of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis in Hungary: cost-benefit analysis].

  Nyári T, Mészáros G, Deák J, Nagy E, Kovács L. Nyári T, et al. Orv Hetil. 2000 Jul 2;141(27):1511-6. Orv Hetil. 2000. PMID: 10943109 Hungarian.
• Is Europe ready for STD screening?

  Mårdh PA. Mårdh PA. Genitourin Med. 1997 Apr;73(2):96-8. Genitourin Med. 1997. PMID: 9215088 Free PMC article. Review. No abstract available.
• [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. Postma MJ, et al. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1999 Mar 27;143(13):677-81. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1999. PMID: 10321301 Dutch.
• 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. van Valkengoed IG, et al. Int J Epidemiol. 2004 Apr;33(2):416-25. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyh029. Int J Epidemiol. 2004. PMID: 15082651 Review.