333 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16719853)
1. Evaluation of 100% rapid rescreening of negative cervical smears as a quality assurance measure.
Manrique EJ; Amaral RG; Souza NL; Tavares SB; Albuquerque ZB; Zeferino LC
Cytopathology; 2006 Jun; 17(3):116-20. PubMed ID: 16719853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Rapid pre-screening of cervical smears as a method of internal quality control in a cervical screening programme.
Tavares SB; de Sousa NL; Manrique EJ; de Albuquerque ZB; Zeferino LC; Amaral RG
Cytopathology; 2008 Aug; 19(4):254-9. PubMed ID: 18476988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Improvement in the routine screening of cervical smears: A study using rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review as internal quality control methods.
Tavares SB; Alves de Sousa NL; Manrique EJ; Pinheiro de Albuquerque ZB; Zeferino LC; Amaral RG
Cancer Cytopathol; 2011 Dec; 119(6):367-76. PubMed ID: 21954191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Rapid prescreening of Papanicolaou smears: a practical and efficient quality control strategy.
Djemli A; Khetani K; Auger M
Cancer; 2006 Feb; 108(1):21-6. PubMed ID: 16302251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A more accurate measure of the false-negative rate of Papanicolaou smear screening is obtained by determining the false-negative rate of the rescreening process.
Renshaw AA; DiNisco SA; Minter LJ; Cibas ES
Cancer; 1997 Oct; 81(5):272-6. PubMed ID: 9349513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. One hundred percent thorough quality control rescreening of liquid-based monolayers in cervicovaginal cytopathology.
Rowe LR; Marshall CJ; Bentz JS
Cancer; 2002 Dec; 96(6):325-9. PubMed ID: 12478679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [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]
8. [Partial re-screening of all negative smears. A method of quality control of pathology department concerning smear screening against cervix cancer].
Jensen ML; Dybdahl H; Svanholm H
Ugeskr Laeger; 2000 May; 162(21):3024-7. PubMed ID: 10850190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Quality assurance in cervical smears: 100% rapid rescreening vs. 10% random rescreening.
Amaral RG; Zeferino LC; Hardy E; Westin MC; Martinez EZ; Montemor EB
Acta Cytol; 2005; 49(3):244-8. PubMed ID: 15966284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [Analysis of the intralaboratory diagnostic variability in the Imola cervical screening program].
Fabbris E; Bucchi L; Folicaldi S; Amadori A; Ghidoni D; Medri M; Bondi A
Pathologica; 1998 Apr; 90(2):127-32. PubMed ID: 9619055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Rapid rescreening of cervical smears: an improved method of quality control.
Dudding N
Cytopathology; 1995 Apr; 6(2):95-9. PubMed ID: 7795170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Computer-assisted rescreening of cervicovaginal smears stained by the Papanicolaou method. Evaluation of the PAPNET system apropos of 225 cases].
Vuong PN; Vacher-Lavenu MC; Marsan C; Baviera E
Arch Anat Cytol Pathol; 1995; 43(3):147-53. PubMed ID: 7574913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Rapid screening of cervical smears as a method of internal quality control. For how long should we rescreen?
Farrell DJ; Bilkhu S; Gibson LM; Cummings L; Wadehra V
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(2):251-60. PubMed ID: 9100751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The effectiveness of cytological rescreening in the reduction of false negative/positive Pap reports.
Cernescu EC; Anton G; Ruţă S; Cernescu C
Roum Arch Microbiol Immunol; 2013; 72(2):93-104. PubMed ID: 24187808
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Metaanalysis of the accuracy of rapid prescreening relative to full screening of pap smears.
Arbyn M; Schenck U; Ellison E; Hanselaar A
Cancer; 2003 Feb; 99(1):9-16. PubMed ID: 12589640
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Comparison of the performance of rapid prescreening, 10% random review, and clinical risk criteria as methods of internal quality control in cervical cytopathology.
Tavares SB; Alves de Sousa NL; Manrique EJ; Pinheiro de Albuquerque ZB; Zeferino LC; Amaral RG
Cancer; 2008 Jun; 114(3):165-70. PubMed ID: 18454462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 100% rapid (partial) rescreening for quality assurance.
Lemay C; Meisels A
Acta Cytol; 1999; 43(1):86-8. PubMed ID: 9987456
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Weekly rescreening of 10% of the total cervical Papanicolaou smears: a worthwhile quality assurance scheme.
Sampatanukul P; Wannakrairot P; Promprakob U; Yodavudh S; Anansiriprapa C
J Med Assoc Thai; 2004 Sep; 87 Suppl 2():S261-5. PubMed ID: 16083199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Rapid prescreen of cervical liquid-based cytology preparations: results of a study in an academic medical center.
Frable WJ; Pedigo MA; Powers CN; Yarrell C; Ortiz B; Clark ME; Ebron T
Diagn Cytopathol; 2012 Aug; 40(8):691-7. PubMed ID: 22807384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
