BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

524 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 18476988)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. [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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. Effectiveness of rapid prescreening and 10% rescreening in liquid-based Papanicolaou testing.
    Currens HS; Nejkauf K; Wagner L; Raab SS
    Am J Clin Pathol; 2012 Jan; 137(1):150-5. PubMed ID: 22180489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Pap smears with glandular cell abnormalities: Are they detected by rapid prescreening?
    Kanber Y; Charbonneau M; Auger M
    Cancer Cytopathol; 2015 Dec; 123(12):739-44. PubMed ID: 26348845
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. [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]  

  • 12. [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]  

  • 13. Automated screening for quality control using PAPNET: a study of 638 negative Pap smears.
    Keyhani-Rofagha S; Palma T; O'Toole RV
    Diagn Cytopathol; 1996 Jun; 14(4):316-20. PubMed ID: 8725131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. Daily peer review of abnormal cervical smears in the assessment of individual practice as an additional method of internal quality control.
    Confortini M; Di Stefano C; Biggeri A; Bulgaresi P; Di Claudio G; Grisotto L; Maddau C; Matucci M; Petreschi C; Troni GM; Turco P; Foxi P
    Cytopathology; 2016 Feb; 27(1):35-42. PubMed ID: 25123613
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Cervical cancer screening programme in Primorsko-Goranska County, Croatia--the results of the pilot study.
    Vrdoljak-Mozetic D; Ostojić DV; Stemberger-Papić S; Janković S; Glibotić-Kresina H; Brncić-Fischer A; Benić-Salamon K
    Coll Antropol; 2010 Mar; 34(1):225-32. PubMed ID: 20437641
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Quality control in cervical cancer screening: Brazilian experience.
    Collaço LM; de Noronha L; Bleggi-Torres LF; Pinheiro DL
    Acta Cytol; 2005; 49(6):694-6. PubMed ID: 16450916
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Performance of rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review as internal quality control methods for cervical cytopathology.
    Tobias AHG; Vitalino AC; Rezende MT; Oliveira RRR; Coura-Vital W; Amaral RG; Carneiro CM
    Cytopathology; 2018 Oct; 29(5):428-435. PubMed ID: 29904955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [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]  

  • 20. [Significance of sources of error and quality control in cytologic mass screening].
    Zimmer S; Krahnert U; Munck C
    Zentralbl Gynakol; 1987; 109(4):209-17. PubMed ID: 3591056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 27.