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.
77 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1037017)
1. [The value of cytological screening for neoplasms in young women]. Kubista E; Kucera H; Ulm R Osterr Z Onkol; 1976; 3(4):103-6. PubMed ID: 1037017 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Positive cytological smears in adolescents and young women]. Steps H Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd; 1982 Aug; 42(8):613-5. PubMed ID: 6922814 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Value of suspicious and doubtful cytological findings in gynecologic serial examinations]. Goldmann C; Herold E; Neuser D; Sielaff E Zentralbl Gynakol; 1978; 100(1):17-22. PubMed ID: 645278 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Cervical cancer screening in a rural population of Zimbabwe. Thistle PJ; Chirenje ZM Cent Afr J Med; 1997 Sep; 43(9):246-51. PubMed ID: 9509642 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [Are analyses of cytological cervix smears from young women more harmful than beneficial?]. Skjeldestad FE; Hagen B; Hagmar B; Iversen OE; Juvkam KH; Steen R; Thoresen S; Hareide B Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2007 Jun; 127(13):1782-5. PubMed ID: 17599128 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. High-grade cervical abnormalities and screening intervals in New South Wales, Australia. Schindeler S; Morrell S; Zuo Y; Baker D J Med Screen; 2008; 15(1):36-43. PubMed ID: 18416954 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Risk of cervical cancer subsequent to a positive screening cytology: follow-up study in Finland. Viikki M; Pukkala E; Hakama M Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2000 Jul; 79(7):576-9. PubMed ID: 10929958 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Screening-preventable cervical cancer risks: evidence from a nationwide audit in Sweden. Andrae B; Kemetli L; Sparén P; Silfverdal L; Strander B; Ryd W; Dillner J; Törnberg S J Natl Cancer Inst; 2008 May; 100(9):622-9. PubMed ID: 18445828 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The diagnostic value of computer-assisted primary cervical smear screening: a longitudinal cohort study. Doornewaard H; van der Schouw YT; van der Graaf Y; Bos AB; Habbema JD; van den Tweel JG Mod Pathol; 1999 Nov; 12(11):995-1000. PubMed ID: 10574595 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Effect of an antepartum Pap smear on the coverage of a cervical cancer screening programme: a population-based prospective study. Nygård M; Daltveit AK; Thoresen SO; Nygård JF BMC Health Serv Res; 2007 Jan; 7():10. PubMed ID: 17244348 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Diagnostic verification of Group III and III D cytological tests with special reference to follow-up]. Schlegel H; Kühndel K Zentralbl Gynakol; 1983; 105(24):1585-96. PubMed ID: 6666444 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [The frequency and importance of gynaecological screening in older women (author's transl)]. Kubista E; Nezbeda J Wien Klin Wochenschr; 1980 Jul; 92(14):506-9. PubMed ID: 6933742 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Cost-effectiveness of adding human papilloma virus testing to a managed care cervical cancer screening program. Lonky NM; Hunter MI; Sadeghi M; Edwards G; Bajamundi K; Monk BJ J Low Genit Tract Dis; 2007 Oct; 11(4):258-64. PubMed ID: 17917570 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Risk of invasive cervical cancer after Pap smears: the protective effect of multiple negatives. Coldman A; Phillips N; Kan L; Matisic J; Benedet L; Towers L J Med Screen; 2005; 12(1):7-11. PubMed ID: 15814014 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Early detection of precursors of cervical cancer with cervical cytology and visual inspection of cervix with acetic Acid. Dhaubhadel P; Vaidya A; Choudhary P JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc; 2008; 47(170):71-6. PubMed ID: 18709035 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluation of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), Lugol's iodine (VILI), cervical cytology and HPV testing as cervical screening tools in Latin America. This report refers to partial results from the LAMS (Latin AMerican Screening) study. Sarian LO; Derchain SF; Naud P; Roteli-Martins C; Longatto-Filho A; Tatti S; Branca M; Erzen M; Serpa-Hammes L; Matos J; Gontijo R; Bragança JF; Lima TP; Maeda MY; Lörincz A; Dores GB; Costa S; Syrjänen S; Syrjänen K J Med Screen; 2005; 12(3):142-9. PubMed ID: 16156945 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Cervical cancer in women with comprehensive health care access: attributable factors in the screening process. Leyden WA; Manos MM; Geiger AM; Weinmann S; Mouchawar J; Bischoff K; Yood MU; Gilbert J; Taplin SH J Natl Cancer Inst; 2005 May; 97(9):675-83. PubMed ID: 15870438 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Cervical cancer screening in the 21st century: is it time to retire the PAP smear? Wright TC Clin Obstet Gynecol; 2007 Jun; 50(2):313-23. PubMed ID: 17513921 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Assessment of the use of Pap test in a sample of pregnant women]. Dindelli M; Parazzini F; Rabaiotti E; Liati P; Ferrari A Minerva Ginecol; 1990; 42(7-8):305-8. PubMed ID: 2293073 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [The 1996 revision of the Dutch cervical cancer screening programme: increased coverage, fewer repeat smears and less opportunistic screening]. Berkers LM; van Ballegooijen M; van Kemenade FJ; Rebolj M; Essink-Bot ML; Helmerhorst TJ; Habbema JD Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2007 Jun; 151(23):1288-94. PubMed ID: 17624160 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]