BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24187808)

  • 1. The effectiveness of cytological rescreening in the reduction of false negative/positive Pap reports.
    Cernescu EC; Anton G; Ruţă S; Cernescu C
    Roum Arch Microbiol Immunol; 2013; 72(2):93-104. PubMed ID: 24187808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. A more accurate measure of the false-negative rate of Papanicolaou smear screening is obtained by determining the false-negative rate of the rescreening process.
    Renshaw AA; DiNisco SA; Minter LJ; Cibas ES
    Cancer; 1997 Oct; 81(5):272-6. PubMed ID: 9349513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Neural-network-assisted analysis and microscopic rescreening in presumed negative cervical cytologic smears. A comparison.
    Mango LJ; Valente PT
    Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):227-32. PubMed ID: 9479345
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. One hundred percent thorough quality control rescreening of liquid-based monolayers in cervicovaginal cytopathology.
    Rowe LR; Marshall CJ; Bentz JS
    Cancer; 2002 Dec; 96(6):325-9. PubMed ID: 12478679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. 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]  

  • 8. The PAPNET system for quality control of cervical smears: validation and limits.
    Cenci M; Nagar C; Giovagnoli MR; Vecchione A
    Anticancer Res; 1997; 17(6D):4731-4. PubMed ID: 9494597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [The PAPNET system in cytological rescreening of cervical smears].
    Cenci M; Nagar C; Giovagnoli MR; Vecchione A
    Minerva Ginecol; 1997 Apr; 49(4):139-45. PubMed ID: 9206764
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [False negative Pap smears in a Danish material].
    Ejersbo D; Dahl MB; Hølund B
    Ugeskr Laeger; 2003 Jun; 165(23):2391-4. PubMed ID: 12840998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. ThinPrep Papanicolaou testing to reduce false-negative cervical cytology.
    Linder J; Zahniser D
    Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1998 Feb; 122(2):139-44. PubMed ID: 9499356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Results of AutoPap system-assisted and manual cytologic screening. A comparison.
    Wertlake P
    J Reprod Med; 1999 Jan; 44(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 9987733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [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]  

  • 14. 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]  

  • 15. [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]  

  • 16. Detection of false negative Pap smears by rapid reviewing. A metaanalysis.
    Arbyn M; Schenck U
    Acta Cytol; 2000; 44(6):949-57. PubMed ID: 11127751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. Quality assurance in cervical smears: 100% rapid rescreening vs. 10% random rescreening.
    Amaral RG; Zeferino LC; Hardy E; Westin MC; Martinez EZ; Montemor EB
    Acta Cytol; 2005; 49(3):244-8. PubMed ID: 15966284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [A falsely reassuring cervical smear in adenocarcinoma of the external os].
    Rooker D; Baalbergen A; Helmerhorst TJ
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2008 Apr; 152(17):977-80. PubMed ID: 18549169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of visual inspection of cervix and Pap smear for cervical cancer screening.
    Tayyeb R; Khawaja NP; Malik N
    J Coll Physicians Surg Pak; 2003 Apr; 13(4):201-3. PubMed ID: 12718787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.