88 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16169582)
1. Follow-up of abnormal or inadequate cervical smears using two guidance systems: RCT on effectiveness.
Hermens RP; Siebers BG; Hulscher ME; Braspenning JC; van Doremalen JH; Hanselaar A; Grol RP; van Weel C
Prev Med; 2005; 41(5-6):809-14. PubMed ID: 16169582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effectiveness of interventions to improve follow-up after abnormal cervical cancer screening.
Yabroff KR; Kerner JF; Mandelblatt JS
Prev Med; 2000 Oct; 31(4):429-39. PubMed ID: 11006069
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Development of a Pap smear quality-assurance system in family practice.
Curtis P; Varenholt JJ; Skinner B; Addison L; Resnick J; Kebede M
Fam Med; 1993 Feb; 25(2):135-9. PubMed ID: 8458544
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The psychological costs of inadequate cervical smear test results: three-month follow-up.
French DP; Maissi E; Marteau TM
Psychooncology; 2006 Jun; 15(6):498-508. PubMed ID: 16184520
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [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]
7. The agreement between self-reported cervical smear abnormalities and screening programme records.
Canfell K; Beral V; Green J; Cameron R; Baker K; Brown A
J Med Screen; 2006; 13(2):72-5. PubMed ID: 16792828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The significance of documenting clinical appearance of the uterine cervix in the cervical cytology form.
Al-Kadri HM; Hajeer AH; Al-Hawashim NS; Salem HH
Saudi Med J; 2006 Nov; 27(11):1698-702. PubMed ID: 17106544
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The effectiveness of a community outreach intervention to improve follow-up among underserved women at highest risk for cervical cancer.
Engelstad LP; Stewart S; Otero-Sabogal R; Leung MS; Davis PI; Pasick RJ
Prev Med; 2005; 41(3-4):741-8. PubMed ID: 16125761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [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]
11. Pathways to diagnosis of cervical cancer: screening history, delay in follow up, and smear reading.
Priest P; Sadler L; Peters J; Crengle S; Bethwaite P; Medley G; Jackson R
BJOG; 2007 Apr; 114(4):398-407. PubMed ID: 17166215
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. National registry of cervical cytologic diagnoses in The Netherlands.
Vooijs GP; Casparie-van Velsen IA; Peters FA; Beck HL
Acta Cytol; 1989; 33(6):825-30. PubMed ID: 2588915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. [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]
15. 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]
16. The cervical smear test: does timing have an effect on sample adequacy?
Davies S
Cytopathology; 2006 Aug; 17(4):182-6. PubMed ID: 16879265
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. [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]
[Next] [New Search]
