65 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11309772)
1. 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]
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. 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]
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. 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]
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. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: a comparative review of original and automated rescreen diagnosis of cervicovaginal smears with long term follow-up.
Stastny JF; Remmers RE; London WB; Pedigo MA; Cahill LA; Ryan M; Frable WJ
Cancer; 1997 Dec; 81(6):348-53. PubMed ID: 9438460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
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. Reducing or eliminating use of the category of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance decreases the diagnostic accuracy of the Papanicolaou smear.
Pitman MB; Cibas ES; Powers CN; Renshaw AA; Frable WJ
Cancer; 2002 Jun; 96(3):128-34. PubMed ID: 12115299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Significance of a diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance for Papanicolaou smears in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women.
Keating JT; Wang HH
Cancer; 2001 Apr; 93(2):100-5. PubMed ID: 11309774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. The colposcopic impression. Is it influenced by the colposcopist's knowledge of the findings on the referral Papanicolaou smear?
Pretorius RG; Belinson JL; Zhang WH; Burchette RJ; Elson P; Qiao YL
J Reprod Med; 2001 Aug; 46(8):724-8. PubMed ID: 11547646
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Evaluation of the PAPNET cytologic screening system for quality control of cervical smears.
Koss LG; Lin E; Schreiber K; Elgert P; Mango L
Am J Clin Pathol; 1994 Feb; 101(2):220-9. PubMed ID: 8116579
[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. Cellular differences between true negative and false negative Papanicolaou smears.
Mitchell H; Medley G
Cytopathology; 1993; 4(5):285-90. PubMed ID: 8274666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Papanicolaou smear: can we make a good test better? Technical and interpretive challenges for the practitioner.
Eltabbakh GH; Eltabbakh GD
J Womens Health Gend Based Med; 1999 May; 8(4):469-76. PubMed ID: 10839701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
