149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11354836)
1. Direct-to-vial experience with AutoCyte PREP in a small New England regional cytology practice.
Marino JF; Fremont-Smith M
J Reprod Med; 2001 Apr; 46(4):353-8. PubMed ID: 11354836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effectiveness of thin-layer preparations vs. conventional Pap smears in a blinded, split-sample study. Extended cytologic evaluation.
Hessling JJ; Raso DS; Schiffer B; Callicott J; Husain M; Taylor D
J Reprod Med; 2001 Oct; 46(10):880-6. PubMed ID: 11725731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Preliminary assessment of the AutoCyte PREP. Direct-to-vial performance.
Tench W
J Reprod Med; 2000 Nov; 45(11):912-6. PubMed ID: 11127103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Conventional Pap smear and liquid-based cytology as screening tools in low-resource settings in Latin America: experience of the Latin American screening study.
Longatto-Filho A; Maeda MY; Erzen M; Branca M; Roteli-Martins C; Naud P; Derchain SF; Hammes L; Matos J; Gontijo R; Sarian LO; Lima TP; Tatti S; Syrjänen S; Syrjänen K
Acta Cytol; 2005; 49(5):500-6. PubMed ID: 16334026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of the SurePath liquid-based Papanicolaou smear with the conventional Papanicolaou smear in a multisite direct-to-vial study.
Fremont-Smith M; Marino J; Griffin B; Spencer L; Bolick D
Cancer; 2004 Oct; 102(5):269-79. PubMed ID: 15386329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Use of a liquid-based, thin-layer Pap test in a community hospital. Impact on cytology performance and productivity.
Sass MA
Acta Cytol; 2004; 48(1):17-22. PubMed ID: 14969176
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. AutoCyte Prep system vs. conventional cervical cytology. Comparison based on 2,156 cases.
Minge L; Fleming M; VanGeem T; Bishop JW
J Reprod Med; 2000 Mar; 45(3):179-84. PubMed ID: 10756493
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Multicenter masked evaluation of AutoCyte PREP thin layers with matched conventional smears. Including initial biopsy results.
Bishop JW; Bigner SH; Colgan TJ; Husain M; Howell LP; McIntosh KM; Taylor DA; Sadeghi MH
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):189-97. PubMed ID: 9479339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Direct-to-vial use of the AutoCyte PREP liquid-based preparation for cervical-vaginal specimens in three European laboratories.
Vassilakos P; Saurel J; Rondez R
Acta Cytol; 1999; 43(1):65-8. PubMed ID: 9987452
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Biopsy-based comparison of liquid-based, thin-layer preparations to conventional Pap smears.
Vassilakos P; Schwartz D; de Marval F; Yousfi L; Broquet G; Mathez-Loic F; Campana A; Major A
J Reprod Med; 2000 Jan; 45(1):11-6. PubMed ID: 10664941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Dual sampling of the endocervix and its impact on AutoCyte Prep endocervical adequacy.
Day SJ; Deszo EL; Freund GG
Am J Clin Pathol; 2002 Jul; 118(1):41-6. PubMed ID: 12109854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of manual and automated methods of liquid-based cytology. A morphologic study.
Alves VA; Bibbo M; Schmitt FC; Milanezi F; Longatto Filho A
Acta Cytol; 2004; 48(2):187-93. PubMed ID: 15085750
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Liquid-based cytology: evaluation of effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and application to present practice.
Cox JT
J Natl Compr Canc Netw; 2004 Nov; 2(6):597-611. PubMed ID: 19780303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of conventional and liquid-based Pap smear methods in the diagnosis of precancerous cervical lesions.
Honarvar Z; Zarisfi Z; Salari Sedigh S; Masoumi Shahrbabak M
J Obstet Gynaecol; 2022 Aug; 42(6):2320-2324. PubMed ID: 35579303
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Cervicovaginal smear abnormalities in sexually active adolescents. Implications for management.
Simsir A; Brooks S; Cochran L; Bourquin P; Ioffe OB
Acta Cytol; 2002; 46(2):271-6. PubMed ID: 11917572
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Role of Pap Test terminology and age in the detection of carcinoma invasive and carcinoma in situ in medically underserved California women.
Howell LP; Tabnak F; Tudury AJ; Stoodt G
Diagn Cytopathol; 2004 Apr; 30(4):227-34. PubMed ID: 15048955
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Whole-Slide Imaging of Pap Cellblock Preparations Is a Potentially Valid Screening Method.
Tawfik O; Davis M; Dillon S; Tawfik L; Diaz FJ; Amin K; Fan F
Acta Cytol; 2015; 59(2):187-200. PubMed ID: 25967603
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Does the interval between papanicolaou tests influence the quality of cytology?
Jeronimo J; Khan MJ; Schiffman M; Solomon D;
Cancer; 2005 Jun; 105(3):133-8. PubMed ID: 15822121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Split-sample analysis of discarded cells from liquid-based Pap smear sampling devices.
Rinas AC; Mittman BW; Le LV; Hartmann K; Cayless J; Singh HK
Acta Cytol; 2006; 50(1):55-62. PubMed ID: 16514841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The significance of the Papanicolaou smear diagnosis of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion.
Nasser SM; Cibas ES; Crum CP; Faquin WC
Cancer; 2003 Oct; 99(5):272-6. PubMed ID: 14579293
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
