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]
