131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10349363)
21. Detection of adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix in Papanicolaou tests: comparison of diagnostic accuracy with other high-grade lesions.
Renshaw AA; Mody DR; Lozano RL; Volk EE; Walsh MK; Davey DD; Birdsong GG
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 2004 Feb; 128(2):153-7. PubMed ID: 14736290
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Split-sample analysis of discarded cells from liquid-based Pap smear sampling devices.
Rinas AC; Mittman BW; Le LV; Hartmann K; Cayless J; Singh HK
Acta Cytol; 2006; 50(1):55-62. PubMed ID: 16514841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. HPV DNA testing of self-collected vaginal samples compared with cytologic screening to detect cervical cancer.
Wright TC; Denny L; Kuhn L; Pollack A; Lorincz A
JAMA; 2000 Jan; 283(1):81-6. PubMed ID: 10632284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Cytologic features of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion in thinprep papanicolaou test slides and conventional smears: comparison of cases that performed poorly with those that performed well in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology.
Renshaw AA; Dubray-Benstein B; Haja J; Hughes JH;
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 2005 Jan; 129(1):23-5. PubMed ID: 15628904
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Reliability of sparing Papanicolaou test conventional reading in cases reported as No Further Review at AutoPap-assisted cytological screening: survey of 30,658 cases with follow-up cytological screening.
Troni GM; Cariaggi MP; Bulgaresi P; Houssami N; Ciatto S
Cancer; 2007 Apr; 111(2):93-8. PubMed ID: 17330271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Cytologic features of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion in conventional slides: what is the difference between cases that perform well and those that perform poorly?
Renshaw AA; Prey MU; Hodes L; Weisson M; Haja J; Moriarty AT;
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 2005 Jun; 129(6):733-5. PubMed ID: 15913418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Performance of ThinPrep liquid-based cervical cytology in comparison with conventionally prepared Papanicolaou smears: a quantitative survey.
Abulafia O; Pezzullo JC; Sherer DM
Gynecol Oncol; 2003 Jul; 90(1):137-44. PubMed ID: 12821354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Morphologic analysis of false negative SurePath® slides using Focalpoint™ GS computer-assisted cervical screening technology: An Australian experience.
Bowditch RC; Clarke JM; Baird PJ; Greenberg ML
Diagn Cytopathol; 2015 Nov; 43(11):870-8. PubMed ID: 26174002
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. Impact of the AutoPap (currently Focalpoint) primary screening system location guide use on interpretation time and diagnosis.
Ronco G; Vineis C; Montanari G; Orlassino R; Parisio F; Arnaud S; Berardengo E; Fabbrini T; Segnan N
Cancer; 2003 Apr; 99(2):83-8. PubMed ID: 12704687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. BD focalpoint slide profiler performance with atypical glandular cells on SurePath Papanicolaou smears.
Chute DJ; Lim H; Kong CS
Cancer Cytopathol; 2010 Apr; 118(2):68-74. PubMed ID: 20209621
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. The primary screening clinical trials of the TriPath AutoPap System.
Wilbur DC; Norton MK
Epidemiology; 2002 May; 13 Suppl 3():S30-3. PubMed ID: 12071481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Thin-layer Pap test vs. conventional Pap smear. Analysis of 400 split samples.
Biscotti CV; O'Brien DL; Gero MA; Gramlich TL; Kennedy AW; Easley KA
J Reprod Med; 2002 Jan; 47(1):9-13. PubMed ID: 11838315
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Automated cervical cytology: meta-analyses of the performance of the AutoPap 300 QC System.
Abulafia O; Sherer DM
Obstet Gynecol Surv; 1999 Jul; 54(7):469-76. PubMed ID: 10394585
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. [Liquid phase cytology in the primary screening for cervical cancer: a multicenter study].
Monsonégo J; Autillo-Touati A; Bergeron C; Dachez R; Liaras J; Saurel J; Zerat L; Chatelain P; Mottot C
Gynecol Obstet Fertil; 2001 Nov; 29(11):799-807. PubMed ID: 11770273
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Results of AutoPap system-assisted and manual cytologic screening. A comparison.
Wertlake P
J Reprod Med; 1999 Jan; 44(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 9987733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Human papillomavirus testing as triage for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions: sensitivity, specificity, and cost-effectiveness.
Kaufman RH; Adam E; Icenogle J; Reeves WC
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1997 Oct; 177(4):930-6. PubMed ID: 9369847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Incidence of abnormal cervical and vaginal cytology among women over age 65 years living with human immunodeficiency virus.
Stewart KA; Allen SM; Chesnokova AE; Syed F; Levison JE
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2020 May; 222(5):486.e1-486.e10. PubMed ID: 31678094
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Positive predictive value of liquid-based and conventional cervical Papanicolaou smears reported as malignant.
Uyar DS; Eltabbakh GH; Mount SL
Gynecol Oncol; 2003 May; 89(2):227-32. PubMed ID: 12713984
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Virologic versus cytologic triage of women with equivocal Pap smears: a meta-analysis of the accuracy to detect high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia.
Arbyn M; Buntinx F; Van Ranst M; Paraskevaidis E; Martin-Hirsch P; Dillner J
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2004 Feb; 96(4):280-93. PubMed ID: 14970277
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
