116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10603188)
1. A practical problem with calculating the false-negative rate of Papanicolaou smear interpretation by rescreening negative cases alone.
Renshaw AA
Cancer; 1999 Dec; 87(6):351-3. PubMed ID: 10603188
[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. 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]
4. 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]
5. An accurate and precise methodology for routine determination of the false-negative rate of Papanicolaou smear screening.
Renshaw AA
Cancer; 2001 Apr; 93(2):86-92. PubMed ID: 11309772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Comparison of false negative rates between 100% rapid review and 10% random full rescreening as internal quality control methods in cervical cytology screening.
Lee BC; Lam SY; Walker T
Acta Cytol; 2009; 53(3):271-6. PubMed ID: 19534266
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A practical guide to Papanicolaou smear rescreens: how many slides must be reevaluated to make a statistically valid assessment of screening performance?
Krieger PA; Cohen T; Naryshkin S
Cancer; 1998 Jun; 84(3):130-7. PubMed ID: 9678725
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Weekly rescreening of 10% of the total cervical Papanicolaou smears: a worthwhile quality assurance scheme.
Sampatanukul P; Wannakrairot P; Promprakob U; Yodavudh S; Anansiriprapa C
J Med Assoc Thai; 2004 Sep; 87 Suppl 2():S261-5. PubMed ID: 16083199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. False-Negative Rate of Papanicolaou Testing: A National Survey from the Thai Society of Cytology.
Koonmee S; Bychkov A; Shuangshoti S; Bhummichitra K; Himakhun W; Karalak A; Rangdaeng S
Acta Cytol; 2017; 61(6):434-440. PubMed ID: 28738387
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The false-negative fraction: a statistical method to measure the efficacy of cervical smear screening laboratories.
Dolinar J; Ollayos CW; Tellado M; Ali I; Stevens A; Paquette C; Brodbelt S
Mil Med; 1999 Jun; 164(6):410-1. PubMed ID: 10377709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Quality assurance in gynecologic cytology. What is practical?
Rohr LR
Am J Clin Pathol; 1990 Dec; 94(6):754-8. PubMed ID: 2244593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Rescreening in cervical cytology for quality control. When bad data is worse than no data or what works, what doesn't, and why.
Renshaw AA
Clin Lab Med; 2003 Sep; 23(3):695-708. PubMed ID: 14560535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The effectiveness of cytological rescreening in the reduction of false negative/positive Pap reports.
Cernescu EC; Anton G; Ruţă S; Cernescu C
Roum Arch Microbiol Immunol; 2013; 72(2):93-104. PubMed ID: 24187808
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Partial re-screening of all negative smears. A method of quality control of pathology department concerning smear screening against cervix cancer].
Jensen ML; Dybdahl H; Svanholm H
Ugeskr Laeger; 2000 May; 162(21):3024-7. PubMed ID: 10850190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Detection of false negative Pap smears by rapid reviewing. A metaanalysis.
Arbyn M; Schenck U
Acta Cytol; 2000; 44(6):949-57. PubMed ID: 11127751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. One hundred percent thorough quality control rescreening of liquid-based monolayers in cervicovaginal cytopathology.
Rowe LR; Marshall CJ; Bentz JS
Cancer; 2002 Dec; 96(6):325-9. PubMed ID: 12478679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Rapid prescreening of Papanicolaou smears: a practical and efficient quality control strategy.
Djemli A; Khetani K; Auger M
Cancer; 2006 Feb; 108(1):21-6. PubMed ID: 16302251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Estimating the percentage of Papanicolaou smears that can be reproducibly identified: modeling Papanicolaou smear interpretation based on multiple blinded rescreenings.
Renshaw AA
Cancer; 2001 Aug; 93(4):241-5. PubMed ID: 11507696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Review of negative Papanicolaou tests. Is the retrospective 5-year review necessary?
Allen KA; Zaleski S; Cohen MB
Am J Clin Pathol; 1994 Jan; 101(1):19-21. PubMed ID: 8279450
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
