100 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11284954)
1. Can British terminology in cervical cytology survive liquid-based cytology?
Slater DN; Smith JH
Cytopathology; 2001 Apr; 12(2):104-6. PubMed ID: 11284954
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. BSCC terminology for cervical cytology: two or three tiers? Why not five, seven or even 14?
Herbert A
Cytopathology; 2004 Oct; 15(5):245-51. PubMed ID: 15456411
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Terminology, benchmarking and reporting in cervical cytology automation: the critical need for consistency.
Krieger P; Naryshkin S
Acta Cytol; 1996; 40(1):9-11. PubMed ID: 8604580
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. A comment on terminology in cervical cytology and terminology discussions.
Jensen ML; Baandrup U
Cytopathology; 2005 Jun; 16(3):153. PubMed ID: 15924614
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: a rapid and systematic review.
Payne N; Chilcott J; McGoogan E
Health Technol Assess; 2000; 4(18):1-73. PubMed ID: 10932023
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. European Discussion Forum: a new terminology for cervical cytology in Norway.
Sauer T
Cytopathology; 2005 Jun; 16(3):155-6. PubMed ID: 15924616
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Those gland problems in cervical cytology: faith or fact? Observations from the Bethesda 2001 terminology conference.
Moriarty AT; Wilbur D
Diagn Cytopathol; 2003 Apr; 28(4):171-4. PubMed ID: 12672090
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Current techniques for the evaluation of abnormal cervical cytology.
Farley J; McBroom JW; Zahn CM
Clin Obstet Gynecol; 2005 Mar; 48(1):133-46. PubMed ID: 15725866
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Reflections on adequacy in cervical/vaginal cytology.
Frable WJ
Cancer; 1999 Jun; 87(3):103-4. PubMed ID: 10385439
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Changing terminology and screening recommendations in cervical cytology screening programs.
Robertson DI; Srivannaboon S; Pairwuti S
J Med Assoc Thai; 1992 Jan; 75 Suppl 1():90-3. PubMed ID: 1402489
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Cytology reports: are the "Pap" classes outdated?
Marcus PB; Justice KL
Tex Med; 1984 Dec; 80(12):38-40. PubMed ID: 6515577
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. [Continued lack of appreciation for the significance of the Bethesda system--Proceedings from cytology courses organized in Wrocław].
Pawelec M
Ginekol Pol; 2001 Mar; 72(3):180-1. PubMed ID: 11455937
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. [How to read a PAP report?].
Nieminen P
Duodecim; 1998; 114(11):1138-43. PubMed ID: 11544696
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytological diagnoses. National Cancer Institute Workshop.
JAMA; 1989 Aug; 262(7):931-4. PubMed ID: 2754794
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Problems of cell nomenclature in cervical cytology smears. Recommendations of a working party of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.
J Clin Pathol; 1978 Dec; 31(12):1226-7. PubMed ID: 748392
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. The Munich nomenclature.
Soost HJ
Recent Results Cancer Res; 1993; 133():105-11. PubMed ID: 8296056
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Lewis Carroll versus George Papanicolaou: a case for a unified international classification of cervical cytology.
Salto-Tellez M
Cytopathology; 2005 Jun; 16(3):153-5. PubMed ID: 15924613
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Cervical cytology.
Beal MW
NAACOGS Clin Issu Perinat Womens Health Nurs; 1990; 1(4):470-8. PubMed ID: 2081083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Improving consistency in cervical cytology reporting.
Mitchell H
J Natl Cancer Inst; 1993 Oct; 85(19):1592-6. PubMed ID: 8411232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Review of cervical smears from 76 women with invasive cervical cancer: cytological findings and medicolegal implications.
Coleman DV; Poznansky JJ
Cytopathology; 2006 Jun; 17(3):127-36. PubMed ID: 16719855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
