The correct approach to modelling and evaluating chlamydia screening [2]

Sexually Transmitted Infections

Volumn 80, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 324-325

  Roberts, T ^a   Robinson, S ^a   Barton, P ^a   Bryon, S ^a   McCorthy, A ^a   Mccleod, J ^a   Egger, M ^a   Low, N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BACTERIAL TRANSMISSION; CHLAMYDIA TRACHOMATIS; CHLAMYDIASIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DISEASE MODEL; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; LETTER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING;

EID: 4043168434     PISSN: 13684973     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/sti.2003.008458     Document Type: Letter

References (6)

1. Honey E, Augood C, Templeton A, et al. Cost effectiveness of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis: a review of published studies. Sex Transm Infect 2002;78:406-12.
2. Bernoulli D. Mathematical and physical memoirs, taken from the registers of the Royal Academy of Sciences for the year 1760: an attempt at a new analysis of the mortality caused by smallpox and the advantages of inoculation to prevent it. In: Bradley L, ed. Small pox inoculation, an eighteenth century mathematical controversy. Translation and critical commentary. Nottingham: University of Nottingham, 1971.
3. Brisson M, Edmunds WJ. Economic evaluation of vaccination programs: the impact of herd-immunity. Medical Decision Making 2003;23:70-82.
4. Welte R, Kretzschmar M, Leidl R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening programs for Chlamydia trachomatis: A population based dynamic approach. Sex Transm Dis 2000;27:518-29.
5. Mehta SD, Shahmanesh M, Zenilman JM. Spending money to save money, cost effectiveness analysis to advocate Chlamydia trachomatis screening. Sex Transm Infect 2003;79:4-6.
6. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Education and debate. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. BMJ 1996;313:275-83.