134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 11985562)
1. Lessons from the audit of invasive cervical cancer.
Shaw PA
Cytopathology; 2002 Feb; 13(1):1-3. PubMed ID: 11985562
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. A smear on audit. Implications of the Leicester cervical smear audit.
Symonds P; Naftalin N; Shaw P
BJOG; 2003 Jul; 110(7):646-8. PubMed ID: 12842054
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Cervical cytology screening in HIV-positive women: completion of the audit cycle.
Bates SM; Street EJ
Int J STD AIDS; 2011 Oct; 22(10):615-6. PubMed ID: 21998191
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Should we abandon pap smear testing?
DeMay RM
Am J Clin Pathol; 2000 Nov; 114 Suppl():S48-51. PubMed ID: 11996169
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. The audit of cervical cytology screening programmes: discussion paper.
Ewart HE
J R Soc Med; 1991 Aug; 84(8):488-90. PubMed ID: 1886118
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Audit shows weaknesses in cervical cancer screening.
Ferriman A
BMJ; 2001 May; 322(7295):1141. PubMed ID: 11348903
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Frequency and outcome of cervical cancer prevention failures in the United States.
Raab SS; Grzybicki DM; Zarbo RJ; Jensen C; Geyer SJ; Janosky JE; Meier FA; Vrbin CM; Carter G; Geisinger KR
Am J Clin Pathol; 2007 Nov; 128(5):817-24. PubMed ID: 17951205
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Routine audit of large-scale cervical cancer screening programs.
Cuzick J
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2008 May; 100(9):605-6. PubMed ID: 18445817
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Sensitivity of primary screening by rapid review: 'to act or not to act on the results, that is the question'.
Slater DN
Cytopathology; 1998 Apr; 9(2):77-83. PubMed ID: 9577733
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Reply to Saitas et al.
Melamed MR
Diagn Cytopathol; 1998 Mar; 18(3):247. PubMed ID: 9523148
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Pitfalls in the screening and early diagnosis of cervical cancer.
Wain GV; Hacker NF
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol; 1990 Feb; 2(1):74-9. PubMed ID: 2102310
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Reasons for variation in coverage in the NHS cervical screening programme.
McGahan CE; Blanks RG; Moss SM
Cytopathology; 2001 Dec; 12(6):354-66. PubMed ID: 11843937
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Screening-preventable cervical cancer risks: evidence from a nationwide audit in Sweden.
Andrae B; Kemetli L; Sparén P; Silfverdal L; Strander B; Ryd W; Dillner J; Törnberg S
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2008 May; 100(9):622-9. PubMed ID: 18445828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Is cervical screening necessary in older women?
Cruickshank ME
Cytopathology; 2001 Dec; 12(6):351-3. PubMed ID: 11843936
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Stat bite: Frequency of cervical cancer screening by health plan, 2000-2003.
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2004 Dec; 96(23):1741. PubMed ID: 15572755
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. [Cytological diagnosis and invasive cervix cancer].
Gårdmark S; Johnsson JE; Sjöberg NO; Stormby N
Lakartidningen; 1979 Jan; 76(5):279-80. PubMed ID: 759773
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Bayesian analysis of binary data from an audit of cervical smears.
Raab GM; Elton RA
Stat Med; 1993 Dec; 12(23):2179-89. PubMed ID: 8310188
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Cervical cancer audit: and what is quality?
Wilson PO
Cytopathology; 2002 Jun; 13(3):141-4. PubMed ID: 12060075
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. National cervical screening programme.
Slater D
BMJ; 1990 Oct; 301(6757):887-8. PubMed ID: 2261531
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. External quality assurance for cervical cytology in developing countries. Experience in Peru and Nicaragua.
Salvetto M; Sandiford P
Acta Cytol; 2004; 48(1):23-31. PubMed ID: 14969177
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
