82 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15048956)
1. Impact of the new Bethesda System 2001 on specimen adequacy of conventional cervicovaginal smears.
Fidda N; Miron J; Rodgers WH; Rader A
Diagn Cytopathol; 2004 Apr; 30(4):235-9. PubMed ID: 15048956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Reprocessing unsatisfactory ThinPrep Papanicolaou test specimens increases sample adequacy and detection of significant cervicovaginal lesions.
Islam S; West AM; Saboorian MH; Ashfaq R
Cancer; 2004 Apr; 102(2):67-73. PubMed ID: 15098249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Proposed Sheffield quantitative criteria in cervical cytology to assist the diagnosis and grading of squamous intra-epithelial lesions, as some Bethesda system definitions require amendment.
Slater DN; Rice S; Stewart R; Melling SE; Hewer EM; Smith JH
Cytopathology; 2005 Aug; 16(4):168-78. PubMed ID: 16048503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of p16INK4a in cervical lesion of premenopausal and postmenopausal women.
Bolanca IK; Ciglar S
Coll Antropol; 2007 Apr; 31 Suppl 2():107-11. PubMed ID: 17600938
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The Bethesda System. Impact on reporting cervicovaginal specimens and reproducibility of criteria for assessing endocervical sampling.
Sherman ME; Weinstein M; Sughayer M; Cappellari JO; Orr JE; Erozan YS; Schiffman MH; Kurman RJ
Acta Cytol; 1993; 37(1):55-60. PubMed ID: 8434497
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Atypical epithelial cells and specimen adequacy: current laboratory practices of participants in the college of American pathologists interlaboratory comparison program in cervicovaginal cytology.
Davey DD; Woodhouse S; Styer P; Stastny J; Mody D
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 2000 Feb; 124(2):203-11. PubMed ID: 10656727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Applicability of the Bethesda System 2001 to a public health setting.
Prandi S; Beccati D; De Aloysio G; Fulgenzi P; Gabrielli M; Ghirardini C; Rivasi F; Saragoni L; de Bianchi PS; Bucchi L
Cancer; 2006 Oct; 108(5):271-6. PubMed ID: 16948127
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Causes and frequency of unsatisfactory cervicovaginal smears].
Gavranović L; Novak SR; Bolanca IK
Acta Med Croatica; 2011 Sep; 65 Suppl 1():115-9. PubMed ID: 23126038
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Direct-to-vial comparison of a new liquid-based cytology system, liqui-PREP versus the conventional pap smear.
Park J; Jung EH; Kim C; Choi YH
Diagn Cytopathol; 2007 Aug; 35(8):488-92. PubMed ID: 17636495
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: recommendations for collecting samples for conventional and liquid-based cytology.
Arbyn M; Herbert A; Schenck U; Nieminen P; Jordan J; Mcgoogan E; Patnick J; Bergeron C; Baldauf JJ; Klinkhamer P; Bulten J; Martin-Hirsch P
Cytopathology; 2007 Jun; 18(3):133-9. PubMed ID: 17573762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Clinical parameters associated with unsatisfactory specimens of conventional cervical smears.
Lu CH; Chang CC; Chang MC; Chen SJ; Jan YJ; Fu TF; Ho ES
Diagn Cytopathol; 2011 Feb; 39(2):87-91. PubMed ID: 20091895
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Influence of specimen adequacy on the diagnosis of ASCUS.
Sebastião AP; Noronha Ld; Pinheiro DL; Collaço LM; de Carvalho NS; Bleggi-Torres LF
Diagn Cytopathol; 2004 Sep; 31(3):155-8. PubMed ID: 15349983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Quality assessment and improvement of "Unsatisfactory" liquid-based cervicovaginal papanicolaou smears.
Mirzamani N; Chau K; Rafael O; Shergill U; Sajjan S; Sumskaya I; Gimenez C; Klein M; Das K
Diagn Cytopathol; 2017 Oct; 45(10):873-877. PubMed ID: 28752611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Results of the implementation of liquid-based cytology-SurePath in the Ontario screening program.
Colgan TJ; McLachlin CM; Cotterchio M; Howlett R; Seidenfeld AM; Mai VM
Cancer; 2004 Dec; 102(6):362-7. PubMed ID: 15481083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: recommendations for clinical management of abnormal cervical cytology, part 1.
Jordan J; Arbyn M; Martin-Hirsch P; Schenck U; Baldauf JJ; Da Silva D; Anttila A; Nieminen P; Prendiville W
Cytopathology; 2008 Dec; 19(6):342-54. PubMed ID: 19040546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: recommendations for cervical cytology terminology.
Herbert A; Bergeron C; Wiener H; Schenck U; Klinkhamer P; Bulten J; Arbyn M
Cytopathology; 2007 Aug; 18(4):213-9. PubMed ID: 17635161
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Interobserver variability in assessing adequacy of the squamous component in conventional cervicovaginal smears.
Sheffield MV; Simsir A; Talley L; Roberson AJ; Elgert PA; Chhieng DC
Am J Clin Pathol; 2003 Mar; 119(3):367-73. PubMed ID: 12645338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. ASC:SIL ratio following implementation of the 2001 Bethesda System.
Quddus MR; Sung CJ; Eklund CM; Reilly ME; Steinhoff MM
Diagn Cytopathol; 2004 Apr; 30(4):240-2. PubMed ID: 15048957
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Incidence and clinical significance of morphologically benign-appearing endometrial cells in patients age 40 years or older: the impact of the 2001 Bethesda System.
Bean SM; Connolly K; Roberson J; Eltoum I; Chhieng DC
Cancer; 2006 Feb; 108(1):39-44. PubMed ID: 16329117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Assessment of specimen adequacy reproducibility: an Italian experience.
Montanari G; Confortini M; Bellomi A; Cocchi V; Dalla Palma P; D'Ambrosio E; Giovagnoli MR; Navone R; Ronco G;
Diagn Cytopathol; 2003 Apr; 28(4):224-6. PubMed ID: 12672101
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
