126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10349360)
1. False negative rate of cervical cytologic smear screening as determined by rapid rescreening.
Renshaw AA; Bellerose B; DiNisco SA; Minter LJ; Lee KR
Acta Cytol; 1999; 43(3):344-50. PubMed ID: 10349360
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. A more accurate measure of the false-negative rate of Papanicolaou smear screening is obtained by determining the false-negative rate of the rescreening process.
Renshaw AA; DiNisco SA; Minter LJ; Cibas ES
Cancer; 1997 Oct; 81(5):272-6. PubMed ID: 9349513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Neural-network-assisted analysis and microscopic rescreening in presumed negative cervical cytologic smears. A comparison.
Mango LJ; Valente PT
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):227-32. PubMed ID: 9479345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Rapid rescreening of cervical smears for internal quality control.
Diehl AR; Prolla JC
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(4):949-53. PubMed ID: 9684583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A Multi-Institutional Feasibility Study on the Use of Automated Screening Systems for Quality Control Rescreening of Cervical Cytology.
Sugiyama Y; Sasaki H; Komatsu K; Yabushita R; Oda M; Yanoh K; Ueda M; Itamochi H; Okugawa K; Fujita H; Tase T; Nakatani E; Moriya T
Acta Cytol; 2016; 60(5):451-457. PubMed ID: 27673689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The human false-negative rate of rescreening Pap tests. Measured in a two-arm prospective clinical trial.
Renshaw AA; Lezon KM; Wilbur DC
Cancer; 2001 Apr; 93(2):106-10. PubMed ID: 11309775
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Quality assurance in cervical smears: 100% rapid rescreening vs. 10% random rescreening.
Amaral RG; Zeferino LC; Hardy E; Westin MC; Martinez EZ; Montemor EB
Acta Cytol; 2005; 49(3):244-8. PubMed ID: 15966284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Using the Pathfinder system to reduce missed abnormal cervical cytologic smear cases in a rescreening program.
Berger BM
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):173-81. PubMed ID: 9022741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Rescreening in gynecologic cytology. Rescreening of 8096 previous cases for current low-grade and indeterminate-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion diagnoses--a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 323 laboratories.
Jones BA
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1996 Jun; 120(6):519-22. PubMed ID: 8651851
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Clinical Significance of a cervical cytologic diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Favoring a reactive process or low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion.
Gonzalez D; Hernandez E; Anderson L; Heller P; Atkinson BF
J Reprod Med; 1996 Oct; 41(10):719-23. PubMed ID: 9026557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of the SurePath liquid-based Papanicolaou smear with the conventional Papanicolaou smear in a multisite direct-to-vial study.
Fremont-Smith M; Marino J; Griffin B; Spencer L; Bolick D
Cancer; 2004 Oct; 102(5):269-79. PubMed ID: 15386329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Analysis of error in calculating the false-negative rate in the interpretation of cervicovaginal smears: the need to review abnormal cases.
Renshaw AA
Cancer; 1997 Oct; 81(5):264-71. PubMed ID: 9349512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The AutoPap 300 QC System multicenter clinical trials for use in quality control rescreening of cervical smears: II. Prospective and archival sensitivity studies.
Patten SF; Lee JS; Wilbur DC; Bonfiglio TA; Colgan TJ; Richart RM; Cramer H; Moinuddin S
Cancer; 1997 Dec; 81(6):343-7. PubMed ID: 9438459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Costs and outcomes of PAPNET secondary screening technology for cervical cytologic evaluation. A community hospital's experience.
Brotzman GL; Kretzchmar S; Ferguson D; Gottlieb M; Stowe C
Arch Fam Med; 1999; 8(1):52-5. PubMed ID: 9932072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A feasibility study of the AutoPap system location-guided screening.
Lee JS; Kuan L; Oh S; Patten FW; Wilbur DC
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):221-6. PubMed ID: 9479344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Characteristics of high grade dyskaryotic cervical smears likely to be missed on rapid rescreening.
O'Sullivan JP; Chapman PA; Jenkins L; Smith R
Acta Cytol; 2000; 44(1):37-40. PubMed ID: 10667157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Cervicovaginal smear abnormalities in sexually active adolescents. Implications for management.
Simsir A; Brooks S; Cochran L; Bourquin P; Ioffe OB
Acta Cytol; 2002; 46(2):271-6. PubMed ID: 11917572
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. PAPNET analysis of reportedly negative smears preceding the diagnosis of a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or carcinoma.
Sherman ME; Mango LJ; Kelly D; Paull G; Ludin V; Copeland C; Solomon D; Schiffman MH
Mod Pathol; 1994 Jun; 7(5):578-81. PubMed ID: 7937724
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Clinical implication of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance with or without favoring high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion on cervical smears.
ChangChien CC; Lin H; Eng HL; Chang WK
Changgeng Yi Xue Za Zhi; 1999 Dec; 22(4):579-85. PubMed ID: 10695204
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Performance characteristics of rapid (30-second) prescreening. Implications for calculating the false-negative rate and comparison with other quality assurance techniques.
Renshaw AA; Cronin JA; Minter LJ; Nappi D; Whitman T; Jiroutek M; Cibas ES
Am J Clin Pathol; 1999 Apr; 111(4):517-22. PubMed ID: 10191772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
