These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
99 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11556445)
1. Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of automated and semi-automated cervical screening devices: a systematic review of the literature. Broadstock M N Z Med J; 2001 Jul; 114(1135):311-3. PubMed ID: 11556445 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Impact of automated technology on the cervical cytologic smear. A comparison of cost. Grohs DH Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):165-70. PubMed ID: 9479335 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Automated rescreening in cervical cytology. Mathematical models for evaluating overall process sensitivity, specificity and cost. Kaminsky FC; Benneyan JC; Mullins DL Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):209-23. PubMed ID: 9022745 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Cervical smears. Contribution of automated screening]. Ziol M; Vacher-Lavenu MC Ann Pathol; 1996 Nov; 16(5):351-5. PubMed ID: 9004722 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Advances in cervical screening technology. Stoler MH Mod Pathol; 2000 Mar; 13(3):275-84. PubMed ID: 10757338 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Stanley F. Patten, Jr., M.D., Ph.D. and the development of an automated Papanicolaou smear screening system. Lee JS; Nelson AC Cancer; 1997 Dec; 81(6):332-6. PubMed ID: 9438457 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Cost effectiveness in new technology in cervix cancer screening. Sedlacek TV Epidemiology; 2002 May; 13 Suppl 3():S26-9. PubMed ID: 12071480 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Introduction to and update of "cost effectiveness in new technology in cervix cancer screening". Robinowitz M Epidemiology; 2002 May; 13 Suppl 3():S23-5. PubMed ID: 12071479 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Prospects for newer technologies in cervical cancer screening programmes. Hailey DM; Lea R J Qual Clin Pract; 1995 Sep; 15(3):139-45. PubMed ID: 8528539 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Assessing the costs and benefits of alternative rescreening strategies. Hutchinson ML Acta Cytol; 1996; 40(1):4-8. PubMed ID: 8604573 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Prospects for automated cytology. Richart RM; Patten SF; Lee JS Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am; 1996 Dec; 23(4):853-9. PubMed ID: 8989778 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Quality assurance in cervical cytology screening. Comparison of rapid rescreening and the PAPNET Testing System. Halford JA; Wright RG; Ditchmen EJ Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):79-81. PubMed ID: 9022730 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. PAPNET for cervical cytology screening. Experience in Greece. Veneti S; Papaefthimiou M; Symiakaki H; Ioannidou-Mouzaka L Acta Cytol; 1999; 43(1):30-3. PubMed ID: 9987447 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Too early to solve Pap device puzzle. Check W CAP Today; 1997 Jun; 11(6):1, 44-6, 48-9 passim. PubMed ID: 10174227 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]