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.
4. Reproducibility of telecytology diagnosis of cervical smears in a quality assurance program: the Georgian experience. Kldiashvili E; Schrader T Telemed J E Health; 2011 Sep; 17(7):565-8. PubMed ID: 21851161 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Whole slide imaging equivalency and efficiency study: experience at a large academic center. Hanna MG; Reuter VE; Hameed MR; Tan LK; Chiang S; Sigel C; Hollmann T; Giri D; Samboy J; Moradel C; Rosado A; Otilano JR; England C; Corsale L; Stamelos E; Yagi Y; Schüffler PJ; Fuchs T; Klimstra DS; Sirintrapun SJ Mod Pathol; 2019 Jul; 32(7):916-928. PubMed ID: 30778169 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Diagnostic and Treatment Reproducibility of Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia / Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion and Factors Affecting the Diagnosis. Sağlam A; Usubütün A; Dolgun A; Mutter GL; Salman MC; Kurtulan O; Akyol A; Özkan EA; Baykara S; Bülbül D; Calay Z; Eren F; Gümürdülü D; Haberal N; Ilvan Ş; Karaveli Ş; Koyuncuoğlu M; Müezzinoğlu B; Müftüoğlu KH; Özen Ö; Özdemir N; Peştereli E; Ulukuş Ç; Zekioğlu O Turk Patoloji Derg; 2017; 1(1):177-191. PubMed ID: 28832077 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Whole-Slide Imaging of Pap Cellblock Preparations Is a Potentially Valid Screening Method. Tawfik O; Davis M; Dillon S; Tawfik L; Diaz FJ; Amin K; Fan F Acta Cytol; 2015; 59(2):187-200. PubMed ID: 25967603 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. Stoler MH; Schiffman M; JAMA; 2001 Mar; 285(11):1500-5. PubMed ID: 11255427 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Altered recognition of reparative changes in ThinPrep specimens in the College of American Pathologists Gynecologic Cytology Program. Snyder TM; Renshaw AA; Styer PE; Mody DR; Colgan TJ; Arch Pathol Lab Med; 2005 Jul; 129(7):861-5. PubMed ID: 15974808 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. iPathology cockpit diagnostic station: validation according to College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center recommendation at the Hospital Trust and University of Verona. Brunelli M; Beccari S; Colombari R; Gobbo S; Giobelli L; Pellegrini A; Chilosi M; Lunardi M; Martignoni G; Scarpa A; Eccher A Diagn Pathol; 2014; 9 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S12. PubMed ID: 25565219 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of glass slides and various digital-slide modalities for cytopathology screening and interpretation. Hanna MG; Monaco SE; Cuda J; Xing J; Ahmed I; Pantanowitz L Cancer Cytopathol; 2017 Sep; 125(9):701-709. PubMed ID: 28558124 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Health technology assessment report: Computer-assisted Pap test for cervical cancer screening]. Della Palma P; Moresco L; Giorgi Rossi P Epidemiol Prev; 2012; 36(5 Suppl 3):e1-43. PubMed ID: 23139174 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Artificial intelligence-assisted cytology for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or invasive cancer: A multicenter, clinical-based, observational study. Bao H; Bi H; Zhang X; Zhao Y; Dong Y; Luo X; Zhou D; You Z; Wu Y; Liu Z; Zhang Y; Liu J; Fang L; Wang L Gynecol Oncol; 2020 Oct; 159(1):171-178. PubMed ID: 32814641 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Team Reading (Peer Review) of Suspicious/Positive Slides for Continuous Quality Improvement in Cervical-Vaginal Cytology: A Comparison between Methods and Indicators. Placidi A; Capparucci P; Di Luzio A; Manca G; Mania E; Filippini T; Giorgi Rossi P Acta Cytol; 2016; 60(5):458-464. PubMed ID: 27504992 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Accuracy of thin-layer cytology in patients undergoing cervical cone biopsy. Bergeron C; Bishop J; Lemarie A; Cas F; Ayivi J; Huynh B; Barrasso R Acta Cytol; 2001; 45(4):519-24. PubMed ID: 11480712 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Review of the Bethesda System atlas does not improve reproducibility or accuracy in the classification of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance smears. Smith AE; Sherman ME; Scott DR; Tabbara SO; Dworkin L; Olson J; Thompson J; Faser C; Snell J; Schiffman M Cancer; 2000 Aug; 90(4):201-6. PubMed ID: 10966559 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A feasibility study of the AutoPap system location-guided screening. Lee JS; Kuan L; Oh S; Patten FW; Wilbur DC Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):221-6. PubMed ID: 9479344 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A novel automated screening and interpretation process for cervical cytology using the internet transmission of low-resolution images: a feasibility study. Eichhorn JH; Brauns TA; Gelfand JA; Crothers BA; Wilbur DC Cancer; 2005 Aug; 105(4):199-206. PubMed ID: 15937917 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Accuracy of reading liquid based cytology slides using the ThinPrep Imager compared with conventional cytology: prospective study. Davey E; d'Assuncao J; Irwig L; Macaskill P; Chan SF; Richards A; Farnsworth A BMJ; 2007 Jul; 335(7609):31. PubMed ID: 17604301 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Split-sample analysis of discarded cells from liquid-based Pap smear sampling devices. Rinas AC; Mittman BW; Le LV; Hartmann K; Cayless J; Singh HK Acta Cytol; 2006; 50(1):55-62. PubMed ID: 16514841 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]