109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17012481)
1. Rate of pathology from atypical glandular cell pap tests classified by the Bethesda 2001 nomenclature.
Hall JB
Obstet Gynecol; 2006 Oct; 108(4):1034. PubMed ID: 17012481
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: revised after the second National Cancer Institute Workshop, April 29-30, 1991.
Acta Cytol; 1993; 37(2):115-24. PubMed ID: 8465628
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. 2011 colposcopic terminology of the International Federation for Cervical Pathology and Colposcopy.
Bornstein J; Bentley J; Bösze P; Girardi F; Haefner H; Menton M; Perrotta M; Prendiville W; Russell P; Sideri M; Strander B; Tatti S; Torne A; Walker P
Obstet Gynecol; 2012 Jul; 120(1):166-72. PubMed ID: 22914406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Atypical glandular cells.
Chhieng DC; Cangiarella JF
Clin Lab Med; 2003 Sep; 23(3):633-57. PubMed ID: 14560532
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The revised Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: report of the 1991 Bethesda workshop.
J Reprod Med; 1992 May; 37(5):383-6. PubMed ID: 1354748
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. [Cytodiagnosis of the uterine portio vaginalis according to WHO nomenclature. II. Clinical implications of descriptive cytological evaluations].
Locher GW; Herrmann U; Grétillat PA
Schweiz Med Wochenschr; 1976 Apr; 106(15):521-4. PubMed ID: 982007
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Understanding the abnormal Pap smear.
Whall M
Lippincotts Prim Care Pract; 1998; 2(3):315-6. PubMed ID: 9644448
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. [Progress report on the Bethesda System].
Cochand-Priollet B; Ziol M; ; Cartier I; Dubois A; Michiels-Marzais D; Müller J; Picot R; Tartar MD; Vacher-Lavenu MC; Vincent S
Ann Pathol; 2006 Oct; 26(5):382-8. PubMed ID: 17255927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Abnormal Pap smears.
Murphree D
Am Fam Physician; 1992 Oct; 46(4):1039-40. PubMed ID: 1329459
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Clinical and histological significance of atypical glandular cell on Pap smear.
Behtash N; Nazari Z; Fakhrejahani F; Khafaf A; Azar EG
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2007 Feb; 47(1):46-9. PubMed ID: 17261100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Pap, Bethesda or something else?].
Syrjänen K
Duodecim; 2000; 116(11):1248-50. PubMed ID: 11989011
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. [Is Bethesda system better than Pap classification?].
Vuopala S
Duodecim; 1999; 115(18):2030-4. PubMed ID: 11941821
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Cervicouterine viral diseases.
Zaharia M; Moraru I; Luca V; Subţirelu P; Samoilesu M; Bucurescu R
Morphol Embryol (Bucur); 1987; 33(3):183-92. PubMed ID: 2958696
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. [Perimenopause: limits and pitfalls of colposcopic evaluation].
Bory JP; Quéreux C
Contracept Fertil Sex; 1998 May; 26(5):338-40. PubMed ID: 9648377
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. A comment on terminology in cervical cytology and terminology discussions.
Jensen ML; Baandrup U
Cytopathology; 2005 Jun; 16(3):153. PubMed ID: 15924614
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. By the way, doctor. I'm 48 years old, and 26 years ago I had a cone biopsy after an abnormal Pap test. Since then, all my Pap tests have been normal. But for the past three years, scar tissue has made it difficult for my gynecologist to get adequate cells. What do I do about Pap smears now?
Robb-Nicholson C
Harv Womens Health Watch; 2006 Aug; 13(12):8. PubMed ID: 17117509
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Loa loa presenting in a ThinPrep Pap test: case report and review of parasites in cervicovaginal cytology specimens.
Stelow EB; Pambuccian SE; Bardales RH; Cartwright CP; Reif CJ; Stanley MW
Diagn Cytopathol; 2003 Sep; 29(3):167-71. PubMed ID: 12951687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Comparison of the ThinPrep monolayer technique and conventional cervical Pap smears in a high-risk population using the Munich II nomenclature].
Lellé RJ; Cordes A; Regidor M; Maier E; Flenker H
Gynakol Geburtshilfliche Rundsch; 2007; 47(2):81-7. PubMed ID: 17440269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Impact of the more restrictive definition of atypical squamous cells introduced by the 2001 Bethesda System on the sensitivity and specificity of the Papanicolaou test: a 5-year follow-up study of Papanicolaou tests originally interpreted as ASCUS, reclassified according to Bethesda 2001 criteria.
Thrall MJ; Pambuccian SE; Stelow EB; McKeon DM; Miller L; Savik K; Gulbahce HE
Cancer; 2008 Jun; 114(3):171-9. PubMed ID: 18454461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Frequency and outcome of cervical cancer prevention failures in the United States.
Raab SS; Grzybicki DM; Zarbo RJ; Jensen C; Geyer SJ; Janosky JE; Meier FA; Vrbin CM; Carter G; Geisinger KR
Am J Clin Pathol; 2007 Nov; 128(5):817-24. PubMed ID: 17951205
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
