71 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10758586)
1. [Reproducibility of cytologic diagnosis: study of CRISAP Ile-de-France].
Barrès D; Bergeron C
Gynecol Obstet Fertil; 2000 Feb; 28(2):120-6. PubMed ID: 10758586
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Analysis of the intralaboratory diagnostic variability in the Imola cervical screening program].
Fabbris E; Bucchi L; Folicaldi S; Amadori A; Ghidoni D; Medri M; Bondi A
Pathologica; 1998 Apr; 90(2):127-32. PubMed ID: 9619055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The Bethesda Interobserver Reproducibility Study (BIRST): a web-based assessment of the Bethesda 2001 System for classifying cervical cytology.
Sherman ME; Dasgupta A; Schiffman M; Nayar R; Solomon D
Cancer; 2007 Feb; 111(1):15-25. PubMed ID: 17186503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Interobserver variability in cytologic subclassification of squamous intraepithelial lesions--the Bethesda System vs. World Health Organization classification.
Pajtler M; Audy-Jurković S; Milicić-Juhas V; Staklenac B; Pauzar B
Coll Antropol; 2006 Mar; 30(1):137-42. PubMed ID: 16617588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Triage of women with ASCUS and LSIL cytology: use of qualitative assessment of p16INK4a positive cells to identify patients with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.
Wentzensen N; Bergeron C; Cas F; Vinokurova S; von Knebel Doeberitz M
Cancer; 2007 Feb; 111(1):58-66. PubMed ID: 17186505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Severe cervical glandular cell lesions and severe cervical combined lesions: predictive value of the papanicolaou smear.
van Aspert-van Erp AJ; Smedts FM; Vooijs GP
Cancer; 2004 Aug; 102(4):210-7. PubMed ID: 15368312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. HPV DNA testing of the residual sample of liquid-based Pap test: utility as a quality assurance monitor.
Zuna RE; Moore W; Dunn ST
Mod Pathol; 2001 Mar; 14(3):147-51. PubMed ID: 11266518
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Impact of the more restrictive definition of atypical squamous cells introduced by the 2001 Bethesda System on the sensitivity and specificity of the Papanicolaou test: a 5-year follow-up study of Papanicolaou tests originally interpreted as ASCUS, reclassified according to Bethesda 2001 criteria.
Thrall MJ; Pambuccian SE; Stelow EB; McKeon DM; Miller L; Savik K; Gulbahce HE
Cancer; 2008 Jun; 114(3):171-9. PubMed ID: 18454461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Glandular cell atypia on Papanicolaou smears: interobserver variability in the diagnosis and prediction of cell of origin.
Simsir A; Hwang S; Cangiarella J; Elgert P; Levine P; Sheffield MV; Roberson J; Talley L; Chhieng DC
Cancer; 2003 Dec; 99(6):323-30. PubMed ID: 14681938
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Assessment of specimen adequacy reproducibility: an Italian experience.
Montanari G; Confortini M; Bellomi A; Cocchi V; Dalla Palma P; D'Ambrosio E; Giovagnoli MR; Navone R; Ronco G;
Diagn Cytopathol; 2003 Apr; 28(4):224-6. PubMed ID: 12672101
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Diagnostic reproducibility of Pap testing in two regions of Mexico: the need for quality control mechanisms.
de Ruíz PA; Lazcano Ponce EC; Duarte Torres R; Ruíz Juárez I; Martínez Cortez I
Bull Pan Am Health Organ; 1996 Dec; 30(4):330-8. PubMed ID: 9041744
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Intralaboratory reproducibility of cervical cytology diagnoses in the external quality assurance scheme of the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy.
Sama D; Cotignoli T; Guerrini L; Maioli P; Sintoni C; Bucchi L
Gynecol Oncol; 1996 Mar; 60(3):404-8. PubMed ID: 8774647
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of HPV test versus conventional and automation-assisted Pap screening as potential screening tools for preventing cervical cancer.
Nieminen P; Vuorma S; Viikki M; Hakama M; Anttila A
BJOG; 2004 Aug; 111(8):842-8. PubMed ID: 15270934
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Evaluation of cytological screening for cancers and precancerous lesions of the cervix].
Boman F; Duhamel A; Trinh QD; Deken V; Leroy JL; Beuscart R
Bull Cancer; 2003 Jul; 90(7):643-7. PubMed ID: 12957806
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Intraobserver and interobserver variability in the quality assessment of cervical smears.
Klinkhamer PJ; Vooijs GP; de Haan AF
Acta Cytol; 1989; 33(2):215-8. PubMed ID: 2929223
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Colposcopic and histologic findings in women with a cytologic diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance.
Yarandi F; Izadi Mood N; Mirashrafi F; Eftekhar Z
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2004 Dec; 44(6):514-6. PubMed ID: 15598287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Diagnostic concordance in gynecologic cytology].
Lazcano Ponce EC; de Ruiz PA; Martínez Arias C; Murguía Riechers L
Rev Invest Clin; 1997; 49(2):111-6. PubMed ID: 9380963
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Inadequate cervical smears: results of an educational slide exchange scheme. Trent Gynaecological Pathology Quality Assurance Group.
Cytopathology; 1999 Feb; 10(1):16-24. PubMed ID: 10068883
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
