159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12842054)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. Audit shows weaknesses in cervical cancer screening.
Ferriman A
BMJ; 2001 May; 322(7295):1141. PubMed ID: 11348903
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Liability issues with the Papanicolaou smear: a defense lawyer's perspective.
Varner CD
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1997 Mar; 121(3):315-20. PubMed ID: 9111126
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Pap smear refined.
Oncology (Williston Park); 1997 Aug; 11(8):1125. PubMed ID: 9268975
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. False-negative cervical smears: medico-legal fallacies and suggested remedies.
Slater DN
Cytopathology; 1998 Jun; 9(3):145-54. PubMed ID: 9638375
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Smear tests: déjà vu.
Nottingham J
BMJ; 2001 Sep; 323(7311):517. PubMed ID: 11560149
[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. 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]
11. Screening for breast and cervical cancer as a common cause for litigation. A false negative result may be one of an irreducible minimum of errors.
Wilson RM
BMJ; 2000 May; 320(7246):1352-3. PubMed ID: 10818006
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. An audit of cervical cancer deaths in Nottingham.
Wilson SH; Johnson J
Cytopathology; 1992; 3(2):79-83. PubMed ID: 1617163
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. The Pap smear liability crisis.
McCoy DR; Sidoti MS
Am J Clin Pathol; 1999 Aug; 112(2):274-80. PubMed ID: 10439810
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. [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]
16. Quality and liability issues with the Papanicolaou smear.
Sirota RL
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1997 Dec; 121(12):1237-8. PubMed ID: 9431309
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Audit of deaths from cervical cancer: proposal for an essential component of the National Screening Programme.
Slater DN; Milner PC; Radley H
J Clin Pathol; 1994 Jan; 47(1):27-8. PubMed ID: 8132804
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A look at Pap test accuracy and the duty to inform from a risk management perspective.
Meister S
QRC Advis; 1997 Dec; 14(2):1, 5-8. PubMed ID: 10176015
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Rapid review.
Faraker CA
Cytopathology; 1998 Apr; 9(2):71-6. PubMed ID: 9660635
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Three women win in cancer screening case.
Dyer C
BMJ; 1999 Feb; 318(7182):484. PubMed ID: 10094532
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
