186 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14694554)
1. [Follow up after an abnormal pap smear: time interval acceptable, nature of follow up leaves room for improvement].
Geertsen M; Bais AG; Beerman H; Helmerhorst TJ
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2003 Dec; 147(49):2430-4. PubMed ID: 14694554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Follow-up not according to guidelines after an abnormal cervix smear].
Kreuger FA; Beerman H; Nijs HG; Wijnen JA
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1996 Apr; 140(15):833-6. PubMed ID: 8668277
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Less pap-2 results ('minor abnormalities') in the population screening for cervical cancer since the introduction of new guidelines in 1996].
Bos AB; van Ballegooijen M; van den Akker-van Marle ME; Habbema JD
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2002 Aug; 146(34):1586-90. PubMed ID: 12224483
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Differences in screening history, tumour characteristics and survival between women with screen-detected versus not screen-detected cervical cancer in the east of The Netherlands, 1992-2001.
van der Aa MA; Schutter EM; Looijen-Salamon M; Martens JE; Siesling S
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2008 Aug; 139(2):204-9. PubMed ID: 18093720
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [The 1996 revision of the Dutch cervical cancer screening programme: increased coverage, fewer repeat smears and less opportunistic screening].
Berkers LM; van Ballegooijen M; van Kemenade FJ; Rebolj M; Essink-Bot ML; Helmerhorst TJ; Habbema JD
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2007 Jun; 151(23):1288-94. PubMed ID: 17624160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Cervix smears with mild atypia classified as Pap-class IIIA: results of a changed policy].
Doornewaard H; Woudt JM; Sie-Go DM; Kooijman CD
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1991 Sep; 135(36):1642-5. PubMed ID: 1922503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Effect of an antepartum Pap smear on the coverage of a cervical cancer screening programme: a population-based prospective study.
Nygård M; Daltveit AK; Thoresen SO; Nygård JF
BMC Health Serv Res; 2007 Jan; 7():10. PubMed ID: 17244348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Evaluation of the follow-up of women aged 50-74 years after cervical cytological Ascus abnormalities in cancer screening: adherence to clinical practice guidelines in Isere, France; 1991-2000].
Billette-de-Villemeur A; Poncet F; Garnier A; Marron J; Le Marc'hadour F; Morens A; Rouault-Plantaz V; Ney M; Exbrayat C
Gynecol Obstet Fertil; 2009 Oct; 37(10):787-95. PubMed ID: 19782628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Early detection of precursors of cervical cancer with cervical cytology and visual inspection of cervix with acetic Acid.
Dhaubhadel P; Vaidya A; Choudhary P
JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc; 2008; 47(170):71-6. PubMed ID: 18709035
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. The diagnostic value of computer-assisted primary cervical smear screening: a longitudinal cohort study.
Doornewaard H; van der Schouw YT; van der Graaf Y; Bos AB; Habbema JD; van den Tweel JG
Mod Pathol; 1999 Nov; 12(11):995-1000. PubMed ID: 10574595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Follow-up for cervical abnormalities in a managed care plan, 1999-2004.
Benard VB; Berkman ND; Kuo T; Martin CK; Richardson LC
Prev Med; 2010; 50(1-2):81-5. PubMed ID: 19932710
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Risk of invasive cervical cancer after Pap smears: the protective effect of multiple negatives.
Coldman A; Phillips N; Kan L; Matisic J; Benedet L; Towers L
J Med Screen; 2005; 12(1):7-11. PubMed ID: 15814014
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Season, sun, sex, and cervical cancer.
Hrushesky WJ; Sothern RB; Rietveld WJ; Du Quiton J; Boon ME
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2005 Aug; 14(8):1940-7. PubMed ID: 16103441
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. [The Pap test revisited].
Broso P; Pagani E
Minerva Ginecol; 1991 Mar; 43(3):71-85. PubMed ID: 2057106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Cervical cancer screening and associated treatment costs in France].
Bergeron C; Breugelmans JG; Bouée S; Lorans C; Bénard S; Rémy V
Gynecol Obstet Fertil; 2006 Nov; 34(11):1036-42. PubMed ID: 17070085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of visual inspection and Papanicolau (PAP) smears for cervical cancer screening in Honduras: should PAP smears be abandoned?
Perkins RB; Langrish SM; Stern LJ; Figueroa J; Simon CJ
Trop Med Int Health; 2007 Sep; 12(9):1018-25. PubMed ID: 17875013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Pap smear examinations of women at the out-patient department of Siriraj Hospital.
Pairwuti S
J Med Assoc Thai; 1990 Sep; 73(9):473-8. PubMed ID: 2262751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evaluation of cervical cancer screening program at a rural community of South Africa.
Hoque M; Hoque E; Kader SB
East Afr J Public Health; 2008 Aug; 5(2):111-6. PubMed ID: 19024420
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
