126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24187808)
21. Computer-assisted rescreening of clinically important false negative cervical smears using the PAPNET Testing System.
Rosenthal DL; Acosta D; Peters RK
Acta Cytol; 1996; 40(1):120-6. PubMed ID: 8604564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Neural network processing of cervical smears can lead to a decrease in diagnostic variability and an increase in screening efficacy: a study of 63 false-negative smears.
Boon ME; Kok LP; Nygaard-Nielsen M; Holm K; Holund B
Mod Pathol; 1994 Dec; 7(9):957-61. PubMed ID: 7892166
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Intraobserver and interobserver variability in the diagnosis of epithelial abnormalities in cervical smears.
Klinkhamer PJ; Vooijs GP; de Haan AF
Acta Cytol; 1988; 32(6):794-800. PubMed ID: 3201873
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and invasive carcinoma following the report of three negative Papanicolaou smears: screening failures or rapid progression?
Sherman ME; Kelly D
Mod Pathol; 1992 May; 5(3):337-42. PubMed ID: 1495939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Rapid rescreening of cervical smears as a quality control method.
Cross PA
Cytopathology; 1997 Apr; 8(2):79-84. PubMed ID: 9134332
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Comparison of HPV test versus conventional and automation-assisted Pap screening as potential screening tools for preventing cervical cancer.
Nieminen P; Vuorma S; Viikki M; Hakama M; Anttila A
BJOG; 2004 Aug; 111(8):842-8. PubMed ID: 15270934
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Analysis of the performance of 100% rapid review using an average time of 1 and 2 minutes according to the quality of cervical cytology specimens.
Manrique EJ; Souza NL; Tavares SB; Albuquerque ZB; Zeferino LC; Amaral RG
Cytopathology; 2011 Jun; 22(3):195-201. PubMed ID: 20646017
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Quality control of cervical cytology in high-risk women. PAPNET system compared with manual rescreening.
Bergeron C; Masseroli M; Ghezi A; Lemarie A; Mango L; Koss LG
Acta Cytol; 2000; 44(2):151-7. PubMed ID: 10740599
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Rescreening policies in cervical cytology and their effect on detecting the truly positive patient.
Kaminsky FC; Burke RJ; Haberle KR; Mullins DL
Acta Cytol; 1995; 39(2):239-45. PubMed ID: 7887071
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Improving the adequacy of Pap smears.
Baker RM
Am Fam Physician; 1989 Jun; 39(6):109-14. PubMed ID: 2729036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Reducing or eliminating use of the category of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance decreases the diagnostic accuracy of the Papanicolaou smear.
Pitman MB; Cibas ES; Powers CN; Renshaw AA; Frable WJ
Cancer; 2002 Jun; 96(3):128-34. PubMed ID: 12115299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Interpretive yields of screening Pap tests and diagnostic Pap tests.
Stelow EB; Gulbahce HE; Kjeldahl K; Oprea GM; Savik K; Pambuccian SE
Diagn Cytopathol; 2004 Dec; 31(6):427-9. PubMed ID: 15540184
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Effectiveness of rapid prescreening and 10% rescreening in liquid-based Papanicolaou testing.
Currens HS; Nejkauf K; Wagner L; Raab SS
Am J Clin Pathol; 2012 Jan; 137(1):150-5. PubMed ID: 22180489
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Detection of false-negative Papanicolaou smears by rapid rescreening in a large routine cervical cytology laboratory.
Wright RG; Halford JA; Ditchmen EJ
Pathology; 1999 Nov; 31(4):379-81. PubMed ID: 10643010
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Rapid screening of cervical smears as a method of internal quality control. For how long should we rescreen?
Farrell DJ; Bilkhu S; Gibson LM; Cummings L; Wadehra V
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(2):251-60. PubMed ID: 9100751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Prospective study of PAPNET: review of 25,656 Pap smears negative on manual screening and rapid rescreening.
Halford JA; Wright RG; Ditchmen EJ
Cytopathology; 1999 Oct; 10(5):317-23. PubMed ID: 10588350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. False-Negative Rate of Papanicolaou Testing: A National Survey from the Thai Society of Cytology.
Koonmee S; Bychkov A; Shuangshoti S; Bhummichitra K; Himakhun W; Karalak A; Rangdaeng S
Acta Cytol; 2017; 61(6):434-440. PubMed ID: 28738387
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The cost-effectiveness of cervical-vaginal rescreening.
Raab SS
Am J Clin Pathol; 1997 Nov; 108(5):525-36. PubMed ID: 9353091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. The human false-negative rate of rescreening Pap tests. Measured in a two-arm prospective clinical trial.
Renshaw AA; Lezon KM; Wilbur DC
Cancer; 2001 Apr; 93(2):106-10. PubMed ID: 11309775
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Partial rescreening of all negative smears: an improved method of quality assurance in laboratories undertaking cervical screening.
Faraker CA
Cytopathology; 1993; 4(1):47-50. PubMed ID: 8453016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
