286 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1994638)
21. [Comparison of the methods of cytobrush and Ayre spatula in the concentration of endocervical cells].
Longatto Filho A; Maeda MY; Santos DR; de Andréa Filho A; Cavaliere MJ; Shih LW; Oyafuso MS
Rev Paul Med; 1991; 109(3):93-6. PubMed ID: 1947611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. The efficiency of the cytobrush and cotton swab in obtaining endocervical cells in smears taken after conization of the cervix.
Kristensen GB; Jensen LK; Ejersbo D; Hølund B
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 1989; 246(4):207-10. PubMed ID: 2619334
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. The Cell-Sweep. A new cervical cytology sampling device.
Tyau L; Hernandez E; Anderson L; Heller P; Edmonds P
J Reprod Med; 1994 Nov; 39(11):899-902. PubMed ID: 7853282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Controlled evaluation of implementing the Cytobrush technique to improve Papanicolaou smear quality.
Murata PJ; Johnson RA; McNicoll KE
Obstet Gynecol; 1990 Apr; 75(4):690-5. PubMed ID: 2314788
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. The effectiveness and safety of two cervical cytologic techniques during pregnancy.
Stillson T; Knight AL; Elswick RK
J Fam Pract; 1997 Aug; 45(2):159-63. PubMed ID: 9267375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Paired cervical smears: a method of reducing the false-negative rate in population screening.
Beilby JO; Bourne R; Guillebaud J; Steele ST
Obstet Gynecol; 1982 Jul; 60(1):46-8. PubMed ID: 7088450
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. [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]
28. Evaluation of the endocervical Cytobrush and Cervex-Brush in pregnant women.
Paraiso MF; Brady K; Helmchen R; Roat TW
Obstet Gynecol; 1994 Oct; 84(4):539-43. PubMed ID: 8090390
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Diagnostic value of an abnormal smear in non-pregnant women. Evaluation of positive smear from the surface of the portio obtained by the cottonswab method or by the dry wooden Ayre spatula and the relevance of positive smear from the endocervix and/or from the surface of the portio.
Lundvall L; Højgaard LL; Højgaard K; Lundvall F
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 1990; 69(2):147-51. PubMed ID: 2386019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Brush vs. spatula for cervical smears. Histologic correlation with concurrent biopsies.
Chakrabarti S; Guijon FB; Paraskevas M
Acta Cytol; 1994; 38(3):315-8. PubMed ID: 8191818
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Sampling accuracy of the modified Ayre spatula/Zelsmyr Cytobrush versus the modified Ayre spatula/bulb aspirator in the collection of cells from the uterine cervix.
Selvaggi SM; Malviya V
Diagn Cytopathol; 1991; 7(3):318-22. PubMed ID: 1879271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Specimen adequacy and the ThinPrep Pap Test: the endocervical component.
Selvaggi SM; Guidos BJ
Diagn Cytopathol; 2000 Jul; 23(1):23-6. PubMed ID: 10907927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. A comparison of the three most common Papanicolaou smear collection techniques.
Germain M; Heaton R; Erickson D; Henry M; Nash J; O'Connor D
Obstet Gynecol; 1994 Aug; 84(2):168-73. PubMed ID: 8041524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. The unicum and cytobrush plus spatula for cervical cytologic sampling: a comparison.
Broso PR; Buffetti G; Fabbrini T; Francone P; Orlassino R
Acta Cytol; 1996; 40(2):222-5. PubMed ID: 8629402
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Cervex-Brush and Cytobrush. Comparison of their ability to sample abnormal cells for cervical smears.
Hutchinson M; Fertitta L; Goldbaum B; Hamza M; Vanerian S; Isenstein L
J Reprod Med; 1991 Aug; 36(8):581-6. PubMed ID: 1941800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Cervical cytology after cryosurgery, laser ablation and conization. A comparison of the cotton swab and endocervical brush.
Partoll LM; Javaheri G
Acta Cytol; 1993; 37(6):876-8. PubMed ID: 8249505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Comparison of the Cytobrush plus plastic spatula with the Cervex Brush for obtaining endocervical cells.
Cannon JM; Blythe JG
Obstet Gynecol; 1993 Oct; 82(4 Pt 1):569-72. PubMed ID: 8377984
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Cervical cytology: a randomized comparison of four sampling methods.
McCord ML; Stovall TG; Meric JL; Summitt RL; Coleman SA
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1992 Jun; 166(6 Pt 1):1772-7; discussion 1777-9. PubMed ID: 1615986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Contribution of the endocervical Cytobrush sample to the diagnosis of cervical lesions.
Luzzatto R; Boon ME
Acta Cytol; 1996; 40(6):1143-7. PubMed ID: 8960020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. [Cytological screening--the technique of cytological specimen taking and its influence on the quality of the method].
Ivanov S
Akush Ginekol (Sofiia); 2007; 46(8):26-7. PubMed ID: 18642552
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
