238 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12589640)
21. Interpretive yields of screening Pap tests and diagnostic Pap tests.
Stelow EB; Gulbahce HE; Kjeldahl K; Oprea GM; Savik K; Pambuccian SE
Diagn Cytopathol; 2004 Dec; 31(6):427-9. PubMed ID: 15540184
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. [Partial re-screening of all negative smears. A method of quality control of pathology department concerning smear screening against cervix cancer].
Jensen ML; Dybdahl H; Svanholm H
Ugeskr Laeger; 2000 May; 162(21):3024-7. PubMed ID: 10850190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Correlation of cytotechnologists' parameters with their performance in rapid prescreening of papanicolaou smears.
Djemli A; Khetani K; Case BW; Auger M
Cancer; 2006 Oct; 108(5):306-10. PubMed ID: 16948125
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Impact of the AutoPap (currently Focalpoint) primary screening system location guide use on interpretation time and diagnosis.
Ronco G; Vineis C; Montanari G; Orlassino R; Parisio F; Arnaud S; Berardengo E; Fabbrini T; Segnan N
Cancer; 2003 Apr; 99(2):83-8. PubMed ID: 12704687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. [Papanicolau smears: reducing the false negative rate by improving the method].
Biran G; Levy T
Harefuah; 2004 Mar; 143(3):217-21, 245. PubMed ID: 15065363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Measuring the significance of workload on performance of cytotechnologists in gynecologic cytology: a study using rapid prescreening.
Deschenes M; Renshaw AA; Auger M
Cancer; 2008 Jun; 114(3):149-54. PubMed ID: 18412150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Papanicolaou smear sensitivity for the detection of adenocarcinoma of the cervix: a study of 49 cases.
Krane JF; Granter SR; Trask CE; Hogan CL; Lee KR
Cancer; 2001 Feb; 93(1):8-15. PubMed ID: 11241260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. The validation of cervical cytology. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values.
Soost HJ; Lange HJ; Lehmacher W; Ruffing-Kullmann B
Acta Cytol; 1991; 35(1):8-14. PubMed ID: 1994641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Increasing cytotechnologist workload above 100 slides per day using the ThinPrep imaging system leads to significant reductions in screening accuracy.
Elsheikh TM; Kirkpatrick JL; Cooper MK; Johnson ML; Hawkins AP; Renshaw AA
Cancer Cytopathol; 2010 Apr; 118(2):75-82. PubMed ID: 20151428
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. The false-negative fraction for Papanicolaou smears: how often are "abnormal" smears not detected by a "standard" screening cytologist?
Naryshkin S
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1997 Mar; 121(3):270-2. PubMed ID: 9111116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Risk of invasive cervical cancer after three consecutive negative Pap smears.
Coldman A; Phillips N; Kan L; Matisic J; Benedet L; Towers L
J Med Screen; 2003; 10(4):196-200. PubMed ID: 14738657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Automated prescreening of conventionally prepared cervical smears: a feasibility study.
Bartoo GT; Lee JS; Bartels PH; Kiviat NB; Nelson AC
Lab Invest; 1992 Jan; 66(1):116-22. PubMed ID: 1731146
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Validity of self-reported Pap smear history in Norwegian women.
Klungsøyr O; Nygård M; Skare G; Eriksen T; Nygård JF
J Med Screen; 2009; 16(2):91-7. PubMed ID: 19564522
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. 100% rapid rescreening for quality assurance in a quality control program in a public health cytologic laboratory.
Mattosinho de Castro Ferraz Mda G; Dall' Agnol M; di Loreto C; Pirani WM; Utagawa ML; Pereira SM; Sakai YI; Feres CL; Shih LW; Yamamoto LS; Rodrigues RO; Shirata NK; Longatta Filho A
Acta Cytol; 2005; 49(6):639-43. PubMed ID: 16450904
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. [Integrating HPV testing for primary screening?].
Riethmuller D; Ramanah R; Pretet JL; Mougin C
J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris); 2008 Feb; 37 Suppl 1():S139-51. PubMed ID: 18191912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. 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]
37. [Study on the maintenance of the accuracy of cytological diagnosis in the mass screening of uterine cervical cancer].
Takahashi K; Yamane Y; Fukuda S; Kijima S; Moriyama M; Kitao M
Nihon Sanka Fujinka Gakkai Zasshi; 1986 May; 38(5):633-7. PubMed ID: 3722946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Efficacy of visual inspection of the cervix using acetic acid in cervical cancer screening: a comparison with cervical cytology.
Akinola OI; Fabamwo AO; Oshodi YA; Banjo AA; Odusanya O; Gbadegesin A; Tayo A
J Obstet Gynaecol; 2007 Oct; 27(7):703-5. PubMed ID: 17999297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Results of the implementation of liquid-based cytology-SurePath in the Ontario screening program.
Colgan TJ; McLachlin CM; Cotterchio M; Howlett R; Seidenfeld AM; Mai VM
Cancer; 2004 Dec; 102(6):362-7. PubMed ID: 15481083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
