88 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15019013)
21. Laboratory performance measures: evidence against low-risk women explaining low detection rates of high-grade abnormalities.
Mitchell HS
Cytopathology; 2005 Apr; 16(2):77-81. PubMed ID: 15787649
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Semi-automated cervical smear pre-screening systems: an evaluation of the Cytoscan-110.
Husain OA; Watts KC; Lorriman F; Butler B; Tucker J; Carothers A; Eason P; Farrow S; Rutovitz D; Stark M
Anal Cell Pathol; 1993 Jan; 5(1):49-68. PubMed ID: 8424901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Assessment of automated primary screening on PAPNET of cervical smears in the PRISMATIC trial. PRISMATIC Project Management Team.
Lancet; 1999 Apr; 353(9162):1381-5. PubMed ID: 10227217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Accuracy comparison between PAPNET diagnoses and conventional diagnoses in an Italian cervical cytology laboratory.
Ghidoni D; Fabbris E; Folicaldi S; Amadori A; Medri M; Bucchi L; Bondi A
Diagn Cytopathol; 1998 Oct; 19(4):279-83. PubMed ID: 9784992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Performance of the DNA-Citoliq liquid-based cytology system compared with conventional smears.
Alves VA; Castelo A; Filho AL; Vianna MR; Taromaru E; Namiyama G; Lorincz A; Dores GB;
Cytopathology; 2006 Apr; 17(2):86-93. PubMed ID: 16548993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Liquid-based cytology and conventional smears compared over two 12-month periods.
Williams AR
Cytopathology; 2006 Apr; 17(2):82-5. PubMed ID: 16548992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Estimation of disease prevalence, true positive rate, and false positive rate of two screening tests when disease verification is applied on only screen-positives: a hierarchical model using multi-center data.
Stock EM; Stamey JD; Sankaranarayanan R; Young DM; Muwonge R; Arbyn M
Cancer Epidemiol; 2012 Apr; 36(2):153-60. PubMed ID: 21856264
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Detection of false-negative Pap smears using the PAPNET system.
Troni GM; Cipparrone I; Cariaggi MP; Ciatto S; Miccinesi G; Zappa M; Confortini M
Tumori; 2000; 86(6):455-7. PubMed ID: 11218185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. An analysis of the variation of human interpretation: Papnet a mini-challenge.
Husain OA; Butler EB; Nayagam M; Mango L; Alonzo A
Anal Cell Pathol; 1994 Feb; 6(2):157-63. PubMed ID: 8167098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Automated cervical cytology: meta-analyses of the performance of the PAPNET system.
Abulafia O; Sherer DM
Obstet Gynecol Surv; 1999 Apr; 54(4):253-64. PubMed ID: 10198930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Cost analysis of PAPNET-assisted vs. conventional Pap smear evaluation in primary screening of cervical smears.
Meerding WJ; Doornewaard H; van Ballegooijen M; Bos A; van der Graaf Y; van den Tweel JG; van der Schouw YT; Habbema JD
Acta Cytol; 2001; 45(1):28-35. PubMed ID: 11213501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Papnet-assisted, primary screening of cervico-vaginal smears.
Duggan MA
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol; 2000; 21(1):35-42. PubMed ID: 10726616
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Assessing the gain in diagnostic performance when combining two diagnostic tests.
Macaskill P; Walter SD; Irwig L; Franco EL
Stat Med; 2002 Sep; 21(17):2527-46. PubMed ID: 12205697
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Evaluation of the PAPNET system for prescreening triage of cervicovaginal smears.
Ashfaq R; Saliger F; Solares B; Thomas S; Liu G; Liang Y; Saboorian MH
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(4):1058-64. PubMed ID: 9250299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Comparing disease screening tests when true disease status is ascertained only for screen positives.
Pepe MS; Alonzo TA
Biostatistics; 2001 Sep; 2(3):249-60. PubMed ID: 12933537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Detection of laboratory false negative smears by the PAPNET cytologic screening system.
Mitchell H; Medley G
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):265-70. PubMed ID: 9479350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Differences between false-negative and true-positive Papanicolaou smears on Papnet-assisted review.
Mitchell H; Medley G
Diagn Cytopathol; 1998 Aug; 19(2):138-40. PubMed ID: 9702494
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Evaluation of PAPNET system for rescreening of negative cervical smears.
Ashfaq R; Liang Y; Saboorian MH
Diagn Cytopathol; 1995 Jul; 13(1):31-6. PubMed ID: 7587873
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Maximal efficiency of PAPNET in the diagnosis of infections in cervicovaginal smears.
Polus E; Karttunen TJ
Diagn Cytopathol; 2003 May; 28(5):286-7. PubMed ID: 12722127
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. By the way, doctor. I read with interest your article regarding conventional Pap smears, PapNet, and AutoPap. Lately I've been reading about another test called ThinPrep. I'm not sure which one to request. Which of these techniques is better for detecting cervical cancer?
Robb-Nicholson C
Harv Womens Health Watch; 1999 Aug; 6(12):8. PubMed ID: 10402327
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
