118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1731146)
1. Automated prescreening of conventionally prepared cervical smears: a feasibility study.
Bartoo GT; Lee JS; Bartels PH; Kiviat NB; Nelson AC
Lab Invest; 1992 Jan; 66(1):116-22. PubMed ID: 1731146
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Health technology assessment report: Computer-assisted Pap test for cervical cancer screening].
Della Palma P; Moresco L; Giorgi Rossi P
Epidemiol Prev; 2012; 36(5 Suppl 3):e1-43. PubMed ID: 23139174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Cervical cancer screening in a rural population of Zimbabwe.
Thistle PJ; Chirenje ZM
Cent Afr J Med; 1997 Sep; 43(9):246-51. PubMed ID: 9509642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of the cervical cytology test using the PAPNET method and conventional microscopy.
Weissbrod D; Torres M; Rodríguez A; Ureña I; Estrada J; Reyes ME; Carreto AJ
Bull Pan Am Health Organ; 1996 Dec; 30(4):339-47. PubMed ID: 9041745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. PAPNET-assisted primary screening of conventional cervical smears.
Cenci M; Nagar C; Vecchione A
Anticancer Res; 2000; 20(5C):3887-9. PubMed ID: 11268471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of contextual analysis for computer classification of cervical smears.
Garcia GL; Kuklinski WS; Zahniser DJ; Oud PS; Vooys PG; Brenner JF
Cytometry; 1987 Mar; 8(2):210-6. PubMed ID: 3556101
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Image analysis in cytology: DNA-histogramming versus cervical smear prescreening.
Bengtsson EW; Nordin B
Ann Biol Clin (Paris); 1993; 51(1):27-38. PubMed ID: 8338254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Evaluation of PAPNET--a semiautomated system used in the screening against cervical cancer].
Hølund B; Ejersbo D; Hjortebjerg A
Ugeskr Laeger; 1998 Sep; 160(40):5802-6. PubMed ID: 9782761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. Rapid prescreening is as effective at reducing screening error as postscreening with the FocalPoint automated screening device.
Wilgenbusch H; Mueller G; Neal M; Renshaw AA
Diagn Cytopathol; 2011 Nov; 39(11):818-21. PubMed ID: 20949451
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Predicting screening sensitivity from workload in gynecologic cytology: a review.
Renshaw AA; Elsheikh TM
Diagn Cytopathol; 2011 Nov; 39(11):832-6. PubMed ID: 21994194
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Performance of a semiautomated Papanicolaou smear screening system: results of a population-based study conducted in Guanacaste, Costa Rica.
Sherman ME; Schiffman M; Herrero R; Kelly D; Bratti C; Mango LJ; Alfaro M; Hutchinson ML; Mena F; Hildesheim A; Morales J; Greenberg MD; Balmaceda I; Lorincz AT
Cancer; 1998 Oct; 84(5):273-80. PubMed ID: 9801201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A processing strategy for automated Papanicolaou smear screening.
Lee JS; Bannister WI; Kuan LC; Bartels PH; Nelson AC
Anal Quant Cytol Histol; 1992 Oct; 14(5):415-25. PubMed ID: 1338567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [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]
[Next] [New Search]
