115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12214747)
1. Is it now time to evaluate the true accuracy of cervical cytology screening? A review of the literature.
Martin-Hirsch PL; Koliopoulos G; Paraskevaidis E
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol; 2002; 23(4):363-5. PubMed ID: 12214747
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effect of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA '88) on the incidence of invasive cervical cancer.
Helfand M; O'Connor GT; Zimmer-Gembeck M; Beck JR
Med Care; 1992 Dec; 30(12):1067-82. PubMed ID: 1453813
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Common problems in Papanicolaou smear interpretation.
DeMay RM
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1997 Mar; 121(3):229-38. PubMed ID: 9111106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Regulatory closure of cervical cytology laboratories: recommendations for a public health response.
MMWR Recomm Rep; 1997 Dec; 46(RR-17):1-19. PubMed ID: 9409538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. In vitro conventional cytology historical strengths and current limitations.
Spitzer M
Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am; 2002 Dec; 29(4):673-83. PubMed ID: 12509091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Technologic advances for evaluation of cervical cytology: is newer better?
Hartmann KE; Nanda K; Hall S; Myers E
Obstet Gynecol Surv; 2001 Dec; 56(12):765-74. PubMed ID: 11753179
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Medicolegal affairs. International Academy of Cytology Task Force summary. Diagnostic Cytology Towards the 21st Century: An International Expert Conference and Tutorial.
Frable WJ; Austin RM; Greening SE; Collins RJ; Hillman RL; Kobler TP; Koss LG; Mitchell H; Perey R; Rosenthal DL; Sidoti MS; Somrak TM
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):76-119; discussion 120-32. PubMed ID: 9479326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Pap smear refined.
Oncology (Williston Park); 1997 Aug; 11(8):1125. PubMed ID: 9268975
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Rescreening in cervical cytology for quality control. When bad data is worse than no data or what works, what doesn't, and why.
Renshaw AA
Clin Lab Med; 2003 Sep; 23(3):695-708. PubMed ID: 14560535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Papanicolaou smear sensitivity for adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. A study of 34 cases.
Lee KR; Minter LJ; Granter SR
Am J Clin Pathol; 1997 Jan; 107(1):30-5. PubMed ID: 8980364
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. In vitro adjuncts to the pap smear.
Felix JC; Amezcua C
Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am; 2002 Dec; 29(4):685-99, vii. PubMed ID: 12509092
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. ThinPrep Papanicolaou testing to reduce false-negative cervical cytology.
Linder J; Zahniser D
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1998 Feb; 122(2):139-44. PubMed ID: 9499356
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The sensitivity of rapid (partial) review of cervical smears.
Shield PW; Cox NC
Cytopathology; 1998 Apr; 9(2):84-92. PubMed ID: 9577734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Cell preparation methods and criteria for sample adequacy. International Academy of Cytology Task Force summary. Diagnostic Cytology Towards the 21st Century: An International Expert Conference and Tutorial.
McGoogan E; Colgan TJ; Ramzy I; Cochand-Priollet B; Davey DD; Grohs HK; Gurley AM; Husain OA; Hutchinson ML; Knesel EA; Linder J; Mango LJ; Mitchell H; Peebles A; Reith A; Robinowitz M; Sauer T; Shida S; Solomon D; Topalidis T; Wilbur DC; Yamauchi K
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):25-32. PubMed ID: 9479321
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The current status of the Papanicolaou smear.
Shingleton HM; Patrick RL; Johnston WW; Smith RA
CA Cancer J Clin; 1995; 45(5):305-20. PubMed ID: 7656133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Significant reduction in the rate of false-negative cervical smears with neural network-based technology (PAPNET Testing System).
Koss LG; Sherman ME; Cohen MB; Anes AR; Darragh TM; Lemos LB; McClellan BJ; Rosenthal DL; Keyhani-Rofagha S; Schreiber K; Valente PT
Hum Pathol; 1997 Oct; 28(10):1196-203. PubMed ID: 9343327
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Exfoliative cytologic screening. The Papanicolaou test.
Ginsberg CK
J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs; 1991; 20(1):39-46. PubMed ID: 2005483
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review.
Nanda K; McCrory DC; Myers ER; Bastian LA; Hasselblad V; Hickey JD; Matchar DB
Ann Intern Med; 2000 May; 132(10):810-9. PubMed ID: 10819705
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
