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.
76 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17230572)
1. A three-armed trial of the ThinPrep Imaging System. Roberts JM; Thurloe JK; Bowditch RC; Hyne SG; Greenberg M; Clarke JM; Biro C Diagn Cytopathol; 2007 Feb; 35(2):96-102. PubMed ID: 17230572 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Assisted primary screening using the automated ThinPrep Imaging System. Biscotti CV; Dawson AE; Dziura B; Galup L; Darragh T; Rahemtulla A; Wills-Frank L Am J Clin Pathol; 2005 Feb; 123(2):281-7. PubMed ID: 15842055 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A comparison of screening times between the ThinPrep Imager and conventional cytology. Boost T Diagn Cytopathol; 2009 Sep; 37(9):661-4. PubMed ID: 19459203 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Use of the ThinPrep Imaging System for internal quality control of cervical cytology. Heard T; Chandra A; Culora G; Gupta SS; Herbert A; Morgan M Cytopathology; 2013 Aug; 24(4):246-53. PubMed ID: 22937891 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Increasing cytotechnologist workload above 100 slides per day using the ThinPrep imaging system leads to significant reductions in screening accuracy. Elsheikh TM; Kirkpatrick JL; Cooper MK; Johnson ML; Hawkins AP; Renshaw AA Cancer Cytopathol; 2010 Apr; 118(2):75-82. PubMed ID: 20151428 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Location-guided screening of liquid-based cervical cytology specimens: a potential improvement in accuracy and productivity is demonstrated in a preclinical feasibility trial. Wilbur DC; Parker EM; Foti JA Am J Clin Pathol; 2002 Sep; 118(3):399-407. PubMed ID: 12219782 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Cervical cytology reading times: a comparison between ThinPrep Imager and conventional methods. Davey E; Irwig L; Macaskill P; Chan SF; D'Assuncao J; Richards A; Farnsworth A Diagn Cytopathol; 2007 Sep; 35(9):550-4. PubMed ID: 17703458 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of ThinPrep and Pap smear in relation to prediction of adenocarcinoma in situ. Roberts JM; Thurloe JK; Bowditch RC; Humcevic J; Laverty CR Acta Cytol; 1999; 43(1):74-80. PubMed ID: 9987454 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The Becton Dickinson FocalPoint GS Imaging System: clinical trials demonstrate significantly improved sensitivity for the detection of important cervical lesions. Wilbur DC; Black-Schaffer WS; Luff RD; Abraham KP; Kemper C; Molina JT; Tench WD Am J Clin Pathol; 2009 Nov; 132(5):767-75. PubMed ID: 19846820 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. FocalPoint slide classification algorithms show robust performance in classification of high-grade lesions on SurePath liquid-based cervical cytology slides. Parker EM; Foti JA; Wilbur DC Diagn Cytopathol; 2004 Feb; 30(2):107-10. PubMed ID: 14755762 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. ThinPrep pap test: a platform for gynecological diagnosis. Scimia M Adv Clin Path; 2001 Oct; 5(4):183-4. PubMed ID: 17582941 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of the sensitivity of conventional cytology and the ThinPrep Imaging System for 1,083 biopsy confirmed high-grade squamous lesions. Halford JA; Batty T; Boost T; Duhig J; Hall J; Lee C; Walker K Diagn Cytopathol; 2010 May; 38(5):318-26. PubMed ID: 19813268 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. Effectiveness of the Thin Prep Imaging System in the detection of adenocarcinoma of the gynecologic system. Friedlander MA; Rudomina D; Lin O Cancer; 2008 Feb; 114(1):7-12. PubMed ID: 18085633 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Automated screening versus manual screening: a comparison of the ThinPrep imaging system and manual screening in a time study. Schledermann D; Hyldebrandt T; Ejersbo D; Hoelund B Diagn Cytopathol; 2007 Jun; 35(6):348-52. PubMed ID: 17497655 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. High-grade cervical abnormalities and screening intervals in New South Wales, Australia. Schindeler S; Morrell S; Zuo Y; Baker D J Med Screen; 2008; 15(1):36-43. PubMed ID: 18416954 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Is there a role for the thinprep imaging system in reporting anal cytology? Margaret Roberts J; Jin F; Ekman D; Kay Adams M; Lindsay McDonald R; Kathleen Thurloe J; Richards A; Mary Poynten I; Law C; Kincaid Fairley C; John Hillman R; Tabrizi SN; Marie Cornall A; James Templeton D; Marie Garland S; Edwin Grulich A; Farnsworth A Diagn Cytopathol; 2016 May; 44(5):384-8. PubMed ID: 26876374 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Evaluation of p16INK4a as a diagnostic tool in the triage of Pap smears demonstrating atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Duncan L; Jacob S; Hubbard E Cancer; 2008 Feb; 114(1):34-48. PubMed ID: 18186493 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]