88 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15019013)
1. A randomized crossover trial of PAPNET for primary cervical screening.
Irwig L; Macaskill P; Farnsworth A; Wright RG; McCool J; Barratt A; Simpson JM
J Clin Epidemiol; 2004 Jan; 57(1):75-81. PubMed ID: 15019013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of HPV test versus conventional and automation-assisted Pap screening as potential screening tools for preventing cervical cancer.
Nieminen P; Vuorma S; Viikki M; Hakama M; Anttila A
BJOG; 2004 Aug; 111(8):842-8. PubMed ID: 15270934
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of the cervical cytology test using the PAPNET method and conventional microscopy.
Weissbrod D; Torres M; Rodríguez A; Ureña I; Estrada J; Reyes ME; Carreto AJ
Bull Pan Am Health Organ; 1996 Dec; 30(4):339-47. PubMed ID: 9041745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. High-grade cervical abnormalities and screening intervals in New South Wales, Australia.
Schindeler S; Morrell S; Zuo Y; Baker D
J Med Screen; 2008; 15(1):36-43. PubMed ID: 18416954
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Evaluation of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), Lugol's iodine (VILI), cervical cytology and HPV testing as cervical screening tools in Latin America. This report refers to partial results from the LAMS (Latin AMerican Screening) study.
Sarian LO; Derchain SF; Naud P; Roteli-Martins C; Longatto-Filho A; Tatti S; Branca M; Erzen M; Serpa-Hammes L; Matos J; Gontijo R; Bragança JF; Lima TP; Maeda MY; Lörincz A; Dores GB; Costa S; Syrjänen S; Syrjänen K
J Med Screen; 2005; 12(3):142-9. PubMed ID: 16156945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Verification bias-corrected estimators of the relative true and false positive rates of two binary screening tests.
Alonzo TA
Stat Med; 2005 Feb; 24(3):403-17. PubMed ID: 15543634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Detection of unsuspected abnormalities by PAPNET-assisted review.
Mitchell H; Medley G
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):260-4. PubMed ID: 9479349
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [The PAPNET system in the rescreening of negative cervical/vaginal smears. A study from the Imola cytology laboratory].
Ghidoni D; Fabbris E; Folicaldi S; Amadori A; Medri M; Bucchi L; Bondi A
Pathologica; 1998 Aug; 90(4):357-63. PubMed ID: 9793395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. DCS liquid-based system is more effective than conventional smears to diagnosis of cervical lesions: study in high-risk population with biopsy-based confirmation.
Longatto Filho A; Pereira SM; Di Loreto C; Utagawa ML; Makabe S; Sakamoto Maeda MY; Marques JA; Santoro CL; Castelo A
Gynecol Oncol; 2005 May; 97(2):497-500. PubMed ID: 15863150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Validity of combined cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping with adjuvant DNA-cytometry in routine cervical screening: results from 31031 women from the Bonn-region in West Germany.
Bollmann R; Bankfalvi A; Griefingholt H; Trosic A; Speich N; Schmitt C; Bollmann M
Oncol Rep; 2005 May; 13(5):915-22. PubMed ID: 15809758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Usefulness of liquid-based cytology specimens for the immunocytochemical study of p16 expression and human papillomavirus testing: a comparative study using simultaneously sampled histology materials.
Yoshida T; Fukuda T; Sano T; Kanuma T; Owada N; Nakajima T
Cancer; 2004 Apr; 102(2):100-8. PubMed ID: 15098254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Organisation of cervical cytology screening in Croatia: past, present and future.
Pajtler M; Audy-Jurković S; Kardum-Skelin I; Mahovlić V; Mozetic-Vrdoljak D; Ovanin-Rakić A
Coll Antropol; 2007 Apr; 31 Suppl 2():47-54. PubMed ID: 17598505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Two cytological methods for screening for cervical cancer].
Kirschner B; Simonsen K; Junge J
Ugeskr Laeger; 2008 May; 170(22):1933-7. PubMed ID: 18513478
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A novel design for estimating relative accuracy of screening tests when complete disease verification is not feasible.
Alonzo TA; Kittelson JM
Biometrics; 2006 Jun; 62(2):605-12. PubMed ID: 16918926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The New Technologies for Cervical Cancer Screening randomised controlled trial. An overview of results during the first phase of recruitment.
Ronco G; Brezzi S; Carozzi F; Dalla Palma P; Giorgi-Rossi P; Minucci D; Naldoni C; Segnan N; Zappa M; Zorzi M; Cuzick J;
Gynecol Oncol; 2007 Oct; 107(1 Suppl 1):S230-2. PubMed ID: 17822751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Prospective and randomised public-health trial on neural network-assisted screening for cervical cancer in Finland: results of the first year.
Nieminen P; Hakama M; Viikki M; Tarkkanen J; Anttila A
Int J Cancer; 2003 Jan; 103(3):422-6. PubMed ID: 12471627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Evaluation of PAPNET--a semiautomated system used in the screening against cervical cancer].
Hølund B; Ejersbo D; Hjortebjerg A
Ugeskr Laeger; 1998 Sep; 160(40):5802-6. PubMed ID: 9782761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Liquid-based cytology can improve efficiency of cervical smear readers: evidence from timing surveys in two NHS cytology laboratories.
Dowie R; Stoykova B; Crawford D; Desai M; Mather J; Morgan K; Shirt M
Cytopathology; 2006 Apr; 17(2):65-72. PubMed ID: 16548990
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
