238 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12589640)
41. [False negative Pap smears in a Danish material].
Ejersbo D; Dahl MB; Hølund B
Ugeskr Laeger; 2003 Jun; 165(23):2391-4. PubMed ID: 12840998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Cervical cancer in women with comprehensive health care access: attributable factors in the screening process.
Leyden WA; Manos MM; Geiger AM; Weinmann S; Mouchawar J; Bischoff K; Yood MU; Gilbert J; Taplin SH
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2005 May; 97(9):675-83. PubMed ID: 15870438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Performance of rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review as internal quality control methods for cervical cytopathology.
Tobias AHG; Vitalino AC; Rezende MT; Oliveira RRR; Coura-Vital W; Amaral RG; Carneiro CM
Cytopathology; 2018 Oct; 29(5):428-435. PubMed ID: 29904955
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. An approach to the problem of false negatives in gynecologic cytologic screening.
Hindman WM
Acta Cytol; 1989; 33(6):814-8. PubMed ID: 2686323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Pap smear adequacy--is the assessing criterion including endocervical cells really valid?
Pajtler M; Audy-Jurković S
Coll Antropol; 2002 Dec; 26(2):565-70. PubMed ID: 12528282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Quality and liability issues with the Papanicolaou smear: the problem of definition of errors and false-negative smears.
Davey DD
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1997 Mar; 121(3):267-9. PubMed ID: 9111115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Consistency of reporting endocervical cells. An intralaboratory and interlaboratory assessment.
Mitchell H
Acta Cytol; 1994; 38(3):310-4. PubMed ID: 8191817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. [An operative model: verification of the quality of the screening Pap test ].
Montanari GR; Arnaud S; Berardengo E; Campione D; Cozzani C; Parisio F; Viberti L; Ghiringhello B
Pathologica; 2001 Oct; 93(5):609-10. PubMed ID: 11725370
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
49. Internal quality control for cervical cytopathology: comparison of potential false-negatives detected at rapid prescreening and at 100% rapid review.
Tavares SB; de Souza NL; Manrique EJ; Azara CZ; da Silveira EA; Amaral RG
Acta Cytol; 2014; 58(5):439-45. PubMed ID: 25376096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. The PAPNET system for quality control of cervical smears: validation and limits.
Cenci M; Nagar C; Giovagnoli MR; Vecchione A
Anticancer Res; 1997; 17(6D):4731-4. PubMed ID: 9494597
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Receiver operating characteristic curves for analysis of the results of cervicovaginal smears. A useful quality improvement tool.
Renshaw AA; Dean BR; Cibas ES
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1997 Sep; 121(9):968-75. PubMed ID: 9302930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Rapid screening of cervical smears as a method of internal quality control. For how long should we rescreen?
Farrell DJ; Bilkhu S; Gibson LM; Cummings L; Wadehra V
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(2):251-60. PubMed ID: 9100751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. [Cervical cancer screening. False negative smears].
Vassilakos P; De Marval F; Muñoz M
Rev Med Suisse Romande; 1997 Aug; 117(8):597-601. PubMed ID: 9340714
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
54. [Guidelines for the evaluation of internal quality control of smears for screening of uterine cancer in France in the structures of Pathologic Anatomy and Cytology. French Association for Quality Assurance in Pathologic Anatomy and Cytology (AFAQAP)--Commission for cervical smears].
Albuisson F; Anger E; Baron V; Cartier I; Dorne H; Dubois-Gordeff A; Hassoun J; Jouannelle A; Labbé S; Locquet D; Marsan C; Martin E; Michiels-Marzias D; Molinié V; Mottot C; Mueller B; Vacher-Lavenu MC; Vincent S; Vuong PN
Ann Pathol; 1998 Jul; 18(3):221-6. PubMed ID: 9750045
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Neural network processing of cervical smears can lead to a decrease in diagnostic variability and an increase in screening efficacy: a study of 63 false-negative smears.
Boon ME; Kok LP; Nygaard-Nielsen M; Holm K; Holund B
Mod Pathol; 1994 Dec; 7(9):957-61. PubMed ID: 7892166
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. A comprehensive internal quality control system for a large cytology laboratory.
Anderson GH; Flynn KJ; Hickey LA; Le Riche JC; Matisic JP; Suen KC
Acta Cytol; 1987; 31(6):895-9. PubMed ID: 3425151
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Predicting screening sensitivity from workload in gynecologic cytology: a review.
Renshaw AA; Elsheikh TM
Diagn Cytopathol; 2011 Nov; 39(11):832-6. PubMed ID: 21994194
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Accuracy of reporting endocervical component adequacy--a continuous quality improvement project.
Roberson J; Connolly K; St John K; Eltoum I; Chhieng DC
Diagn Cytopathol; 2002 Sep; 27(3):181-4. PubMed ID: 12203868
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Statistical analysis of data in cervical cytology from the viewpoint of total quality management.
Kaminsky FC; Burke RJ; Haberle KR; Mullins DL
Acta Cytol; 1995; 39(2):222-31. PubMed ID: 7887069
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Inadequate cervical smears: results of an educational slide exchange scheme. Trent Gynaecological Pathology Quality Assurance Group.
Cytopathology; 1999 Feb; 10(1):16-24. PubMed ID: 10068883
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
