These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15774236)

  • 1. Cervical screening programmes: can automation help? Evidence from systematic reviews, an economic analysis and a simulation modelling exercise applied to the UK.
    Willis BH; Barton P; Pearmain P; Bryan S; Hyde C
    Health Technol Assess; 2005 Mar; 9(13):1-207, iii. PubMed ID: 15774236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Computerised decision support systems in order communication for diagnostic, screening or monitoring test ordering: systematic reviews of the effects and cost-effectiveness of systems.
    Main C; Moxham T; Wyatt JC; Kay J; Anderson R; Stein K
    Health Technol Assess; 2010 Oct; 14(48):1-227. PubMed ID: 21034668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A feasibility study of the use of the AutoPap screening system as a primary screening and location-guided rescreening device.
    Confortini M; Bonardi L; Bulgaresi P; Cariaggi MP; Cecchini S; Ciatto S; Cipparrone I; Galanti L; Maddau C; Matucci M; Rubeca T; Troni GM; Turco P; Zappa M; Carozzi F
    Cancer; 2003 Jun; 99(3):129-34. PubMed ID: 12811852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Automation in cervical cytology: an overview.
    Banda-Gamboa H; Ricketts I; Cairns A; Hussein K; Tucker JH; Husain N
    Anal Cell Pathol; 1992 Jan; 4(1):25-48. PubMed ID: 1734941
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The primary screening clinical trials of the TriPath AutoPap System.
    Wilbur DC; Norton MK
    Epidemiology; 2002 May; 13 Suppl 3():S30-3. PubMed ID: 12071481
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Effectiveness of AutoPap system location-guided screening in the evaluation of cervical cytology smears.
    Stevens MW; Milne AJ; Parkinson IH; Nespolon WW; Fazzalari NL; Arora N; Dodd TJ
    Diagn Cytopathol; 2004 Aug; 31(2):94-9. PubMed ID: 15282720
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Simulation of primary cervical cancer screening by the PAPNET system in an unscreened, high-risk community.
    Michelow PM; Hlongwane NF; Leiman G
    Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):88-92. PubMed ID: 9022732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Reliability of sparing Papanicolaou test conventional reading in cases reported as No Further Review at AutoPap-assisted cytological screening: survey of 30,658 cases with follow-up cytological screening.
    Troni GM; Cariaggi MP; Bulgaresi P; Houssami N; Ciatto S
    Cancer; 2007 Apr; 111(2):93-8. PubMed ID: 17330271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: an updated rapid and systematic review and economic analysis.
    Karnon J; Peters J; Platt J; Chilcott J; McGoogan E; Brewer N
    Health Technol Assess; 2004 May; 8(20):iii, 1-78. PubMed ID: 15147611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Impact of the AutoPap (currently Focalpoint) primary screening system location guide use on interpretation time and diagnosis.
    Ronco G; Vineis C; Montanari G; Orlassino R; Parisio F; Arnaud S; Berardengo E; Fabbrini T; Segnan N
    Cancer; 2003 Apr; 99(2):83-8. PubMed ID: 12704687
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Automated cervical cytology: meta-analyses of the performance of the AutoPap 300 QC System.
    Abulafia O; Sherer DM
    Obstet Gynecol Surv; 1999 Jul; 54(7):469-76. PubMed ID: 10394585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Effectiveness of automated cervical cytology rescreening using the AutoPap 300 QC System.
    Stevens MW; Milne AJ; James KA; Brancheau D; Ellison D; Kuan L
    Diagn Cytopathol; 1997 Jun; 16(6):505-12. PubMed ID: 9181316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Does use of the AutoPap assisted primary screener improve cytologic diagnosis?
    Bibbo M; Hawthorne C; Zimmerman B
    Acta Cytol; 1999; 43(1):23-6. PubMed ID: 9987445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Screening for thrombophilia in high-risk situations: systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. The Thrombosis: Risk and Economic Assessment of Thrombophilia Screening (TREATS) study.
    Wu O; Robertson L; Twaddle S; Lowe GD; Clark P; Greaves M; Walker ID; Langhorne P; Brenkel I; Regan L; Greer I
    Health Technol Assess; 2006 Apr; 10(11):1-110. PubMed ID: 16595080
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. AutoPap 300 QC system scoring of cervical smears without "epithelial cell abnormalities".
    Colgan TJ; Bon N; Lee JS; Patten SF
    Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):45-9. PubMed ID: 9022725
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Automated rescreening in cervical cytology. Mathematical models for evaluating overall process sensitivity, specificity and cost.
    Kaminsky FC; Benneyan JC; Mullins DL
    Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):209-23. PubMed ID: 9022745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Automation of cytological analysis of cervical smears].
    Cenci M; Giovagnoli MR; Olla SV; Drusco A; Vecchione A
    Minerva Ginecol; 1999; 51(7-8):291-8. PubMed ID: 10536424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Results of AutoPap system-assisted and manual cytologic screening. A comparison.
    Wertlake P
    J Reprod Med; 1999 Jan; 44(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 9987733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Impact of automated technology on the cervical cytologic smear. A comparison of cost.
    Grohs DH
    Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):165-70. PubMed ID: 9479335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.