These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

99 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2227590)

  • 1. Studies on the distribution of abnormal cells in cytological smears. VII. Cervical brush versus plastic and wooden spatulas.
    Rubio CA; Kock Y; Stormby N; Porwit A
    Gynecol Oncol; 1990 Nov; 39(2):167-70. PubMed ID: 2227590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Studies on the distribution of abnormal cells in cytologic preparations. III. Making the smear with a plastic spatula.
    Rubio CA; Berglund K; Kock Y; Zetterberg A
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1980 Aug; 137(7):843-6. PubMed ID: 6996484
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Studies of the distribution of abnormal cells in cytologic preparations. I. Making the smear with a wooden spatula.
    Rubio CA; Kock Y; Berglund K
    Acta Cytol; 1980; 24(1):49-53. PubMed ID: 6928335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Studies on the distribution of abnormal cells in cytologic preparations. V. The gradient of cell deposition on slides.
    Rubio CA; Kock Y
    Obstet Gynecol; 1981 Jun; 57(6):754-8. PubMed ID: 7231829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Liquid-based cervical-cell collection with brushes and wooden spatulas: a comparison of 100 conventional smears from high-risk women to liquid-fixed cytocentrifuge slides, demonstrating a cost-effective, alternative monolayer slide preparation method.
    Johnson T; Maksem JA; Belsheim BL; Roose EB; Klock LA; Eatwell L
    Diagn Cytopathol; 2000 Feb; 22(2):86-91. PubMed ID: 10649517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The cotton-tipped applicator is not adequate for sampling the transformation zone.
    Meisels A; Martel S
    Acta Cytol; 1990; 34(6):903-4. PubMed ID: 2256426
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Studies on the distribution of abnormal cells in cytologic preparations. IV. Importance of the topographical position of the cells in material collected by wooden spatulas.
    Rubio CA; Berglund K; Kock Y
    Gynecol Oncol; 1980 Oct; 10(2):146-51. PubMed ID: 7007176
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The effects of different sampling techniques on smear quality and the diagnosis of cytological abnormalities in cervical screening.
    Williamson SL; Hair T; Wadehra V
    Cytopathology; 1997 Jun; 8(3):188-95. PubMed ID: 9202894
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Systems for evaluation of cervico-vaginal cytological diagnosis].
    Nyklícek O
    Ceska Gynekol; 1994 Jun; 59(3):162-4. PubMed ID: 8081601
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A comparison of cervical scrapes for HPV typing by dot-blot hybridization obtained by wood and plastic spatulas.
    Duggan MA; Inoue M; McGregor SE; Nation JG
    J Virol Methods; 1990 Sep; 29(3):267-77. PubMed ID: 2176222
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The false negative smear. II. The trapping effect of collecting instruments.
    Rubio CA
    Obstet Gynecol; 1977 May; 49(5):576-80. PubMed ID: 850573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Collection devices for cervicovaginal cytology: a comparison.
    Dighe S; Ajit D
    Acta Cytol; 2005; 49(4):416-20. PubMed ID: 16124171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. A randomized control trial of two cervical spatulas.
    Woodman CJ; Yates M; Williams DR; Ward K; Jordan J; Luesley D
    Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1991 Jan; 98(1):21-4. PubMed ID: 1998627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A randomized trial of three methods of obtaining Papanicolaou smears.
    Pretorius RG; Sadeghi M; Fotheringham N; Semrad N; Watring WG
    Obstet Gynecol; 1991 Nov; 78(5 Pt 1):831-6. PubMed ID: 1923208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Detection of human papillomavirus deoxyribonucleic acid in exfoliated cervicovaginal cells as a predictor of cervical neoplasia in a high-risk population.
    Ritter DB; Kadish AS; Vermund SH; Romney SL; Villari D; Burk RD
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1988 Dec; 159(6):1517-25. PubMed ID: 2849881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparison of spatula and nonspatula methods for cervical sampling.
    Rammou-Kinia R; Anagnostopoulou I; Gomousa M
    Acta Cytol; 1991; 35(1):69-75. PubMed ID: 1994638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Radiation changes in endocervical cells in brush specimens.
    Frierson HF; Covell JL; Andersen WA
    Diagn Cytopathol; 1990; 6(4):243-7. PubMed ID: 2209348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Clinical evaluation of follow-up methods and results of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS) detected on cervicovaginal Pap smears.
    Kim TJ; Kim HS; Park CT; Park IS; Hong SR; Park JS; Shim JU
    Gynecol Oncol; 1999 May; 73(2):292-8. PubMed ID: 10329049
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.