96 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20949451)
41. Rapid (partial) prescreening of cervical smears: the quality control method of choice?
Brooke D; Dudding N; Sutton J
Cytopathology; 2002 Aug; 13(4):191-9. PubMed ID: 12269891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Evaluation of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), Lugol's iodine (VILI), cervical cytology and HPV testing as cervical screening tools in Latin America. This report refers to partial results from the LAMS (Latin AMerican Screening) study.
Sarian LO; Derchain SF; Naud P; Roteli-Martins C; Longatto-Filho A; Tatti S; Branca M; Erzen M; Serpa-Hammes L; Matos J; Gontijo R; Bragança JF; Lima TP; Maeda MY; Lörincz A; Dores GB; Costa S; Syrjänen S; Syrjänen K
J Med Screen; 2005; 12(3):142-9. PubMed ID: 16156945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Evaluation of the FocalPoint GS system performance in an Italian population-based screening of cervical abnormalities.
Passamonti B; Bulletti S; Camilli M; D'Amico MR; Di Dato E; Gustinucci D; Martinelli N; Malaspina M; Spita N
Acta Cytol; 2007; 51(6):865-71. PubMed ID: 18077978
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Assessment of manual workload limits in gynecologic cytology: reconciling data from 3 major prospective trials of automated screening devices.
Renshaw AA; Elsheikh TM
Am J Clin Pathol; 2013 Apr; 139(4):428-33. PubMed ID: 23525612
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Multicenter comparison of manual and automated screening of AutoCyte gynecologic preparations.
Bishop JW; Kaufman RH; Taylor DA
Acta Cytol; 1999; 43(1):34-8. PubMed ID: 9987448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Implementation and evaluation of a new automated interactive image analysis system.
Bolger N; Heffron C; Regan I; Sweeney M; Kinsella S; McKeown M; Creighton G; Russell J; O'Leary J
Acta Cytol; 2006; 50(5):483-91. PubMed ID: 17017432
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. A comparison of ThinPrep Imager-assisted with manual screening, and its place in the New Zealand cervical cancer screening program.
Yeong ML; Pringle E; Stewart J; Retter E
Pathology; 2013 Aug; 45(5):474-7. PubMed ID: 23856838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. American Society of Cytopathology workload recommendations for automated Pap test screening: developed by the productivity and quality assurance in the era of automated screening task force.
Elsheikh TM; Austin RM; Chhieng DF; Miller FS; Moriarty AT; Renshaw AA;
Diagn Cytopathol; 2013 Feb; 41(2):174-8. PubMed ID: 22351120
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Cervicovaginal cytology in patients undergoing pelvic radiotherapy using the Focalpoint system: results from the RODEO study.
Stein MD; Fregnani JH; Scapulatempo-Neto C; Longatto-Filho A
Diagn Pathol; 2015 Jan; 10():1. PubMed ID: 25591792
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Calibration of the Becton Dickinson FocalPoint GS slide profiler is essential for optimal performance: Avoiding the algorithm supersaturation cascade effect pitfall.
Nuttall DS; Anderson WJ; Savage AJ; Denton K; Martin CM; O'Leary JJ
Cancer Cytopathol; 2023 Jun; 131(6):383-391. PubMed ID: 36973942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Automated screening of conventional gynecological cytology smears: feasible and reliable.
Saieg MA; Motta TH; Fodra ME; Scapulatempo C; Longatto-Filho A; Stiepcich MM
Acta Cytol; 2014; 58(4):378-82. PubMed ID: 25195537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Rapid prescreening in gynecologic cytology: A more efficient quality assurance method.
Auger M
Cancer Cytopathol; 2011 Dec; 119(6):357-60. PubMed ID: 21954172
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
53. Effectiveness of automated cervical cytology rescreening using the AutoPap 300 QC System.
Stevens MW; Milne AJ; James KA; Brancheau D; Ellison D; Kuan L
Diagn Cytopathol; 1997 Jun; 16(6):505-12. PubMed ID: 9181316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Increasing cytotechnologist workload above 100 slides per day using the BD FocalPoint GS imaging system negatively affects screening performance.
Levi AW; Galullo P; Gordy K; Mikolaiski N; Schofield K; Elsheikh TM; Harigopal M; Chhieng DC
Am J Clin Pathol; 2012 Dec; 138(6):811-5. PubMed ID: 23161714
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Evaluation of the PAPNET system for prescreening triage of cervicovaginal smears.
Ashfaq R; Saliger F; Solares B; Thomas S; Liu G; Liang Y; Saboorian MH
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(4):1058-64. PubMed ID: 9250299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Rescreening in cervical cytology for quality control. When bad data is worse than no data or what works, what doesn't, and why.
Renshaw AA
Clin Lab Med; 2003 Sep; 23(3):695-708. PubMed ID: 14560535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Rapid rescreening of cervical smears: an improved method of quality control.
Dudding N
Cytopathology; 1995 Apr; 6(2):95-9. PubMed ID: 7795170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Rapid review (partial rescreening) of cervical cytology. Four years experience and quality assurance implications.
Faraker CA; Boxer ME
J Clin Pathol; 1996 Jul; 49(7):587-91. PubMed ID: 8813961
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Automation-assisted versus manual reading of cervical cytology (MAVARIC): a randomised controlled trial.
Kitchener HC; Blanks R; Dunn G; Gunn L; Desai M; Albrow R; Mather J; Rana DN; Cubie H; Moore C; Legood R; Gray A; Moss S
Lancet Oncol; 2011 Jan; 12(1):56-64. PubMed ID: 21146458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Performance characteristics of rapid (30-second) prescreening. Implications for calculating the false-negative rate and comparison with other quality assurance techniques.
Renshaw AA; Cronin JA; Minter LJ; Nappi D; Whitman T; Jiroutek M; Cibas ES
Am J Clin Pathol; 1999 Apr; 111(4):517-22. PubMed ID: 10191772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
