114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28752611)
21. Follow-up of women with cervical cytological abnormalities showing atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion: a nationwide cohort study.
Sundström K; Lu D; Elfström KM; Wang J; Andrae B; Dillner J; Sparén P
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Jan; 216(1):48.e1-48.e15. PubMed ID: 27457115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Effects of gel lubricant on cervical cytology.
Charoenkwan K; Ninunanahaeminda K; Khunamornpong S; Srisomboon J; Thorner PS
Acta Cytol; 2008; 52(6):654-8. PubMed ID: 19068667
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Interobserver variability in assessing adequacy of the squamous component in conventional cervicovaginal smears.
Sheffield MV; Simsir A; Talley L; Roberson AJ; Elgert PA; Chhieng DC
Am J Clin Pathol; 2003 Mar; 119(3):367-73. PubMed ID: 12645338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Clinical determinants and smear characteristics of unsatisfactory conventional cervicovaginal smears.
Gupta S; Sodhani P; Sardana S; Singh V; Sehgal A
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2013 Jun; 168(2):214-7. PubMed ID: 23398726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Reproducibility of cervicovaginal ThinPrep cellularity assessment.
Haroon S; Samayoa L; Witzke D; Davey D
Diagn Cytopathol; 2002 Jan; 26(1):19-21. PubMed ID: 11782081
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Using poisson regression to compare rates of unsatisfactory pap smears among gynecologists and to evaluate a performance improvement plan.
Wachtel MS; Hatley WG; de Riese C
Acta Cytol; 2009; 53(2):160-4. PubMed ID: 19365968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Terminology and specimen adequacy in cervicovaginal cytology. The College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program experience.
Davey DD; Nielsen ML; Rosenstock W; Kline TS
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1992 Sep; 116(9):903-7. PubMed ID: 1524452
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Causes and relevance of unsatisfactory and satisfactory but limited smears of liquid-based compared with conventional cervical cytology.
Siebers AG; Klinkhamer PJ; Vedder JE; Arbyn M; Bulten J
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 2012 Jan; 136(1):76-83. PubMed ID: 22208490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Measuring the significance of field validation in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology: how good are the experts?
Renshaw AA; Wang E; Mody DR; Wilbur DC; Davey DD; Colgan TJ;
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 2005 May; 129(5):609-13. PubMed ID: 15859630
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. The optimal technique for obtaining a Papanicolaou smear with the Cervex-Brush.
Ferris DG; Berrey MM; Ellis KE; Petry LJ; Voxnaes J; Beatie RT
J Fam Pract; 1992 Mar; 34(3):276-80. PubMed ID: 1541953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. [Causes and frequency of unsatisfactory cervicovaginal smears].
Gavranović L; Novak SR; Bolanca IK
Acta Med Croatica; 2011 Sep; 65 Suppl 1():115-9. PubMed ID: 23126038
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Is there a role for the thinprep imaging system in reporting anal cytology?
Margaret Roberts J; Jin F; Ekman D; Kay Adams M; Lindsay McDonald R; Kathleen Thurloe J; Richards A; Mary Poynten I; Law C; Kincaid Fairley C; John Hillman R; Tabrizi SN; Marie Cornall A; James Templeton D; Marie Garland S; Edwin Grulich A; Farnsworth A
Diagn Cytopathol; 2016 May; 44(5):384-8. PubMed ID: 26876374
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Has the ThinPrep method of cervical screening maintained its improvement over conventional smears in terms of specimen adequacy?
Treacy A; Reynolds J; Kay EW; Leader M; Grace A
Diagn Cytopathol; 2009 Apr; 37(4):239-40. PubMed ID: 19217033
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. The adequate Papanicolaou smear revisited.
Greening SE
Diagn Cytopathol; 1985; 1(1):55-8. PubMed ID: 3836072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Impact of the more restrictive definition of atypical squamous cells introduced by the 2001 Bethesda System on the sensitivity and specificity of the Papanicolaou test: a 5-year follow-up study of Papanicolaou tests originally interpreted as ASCUS, reclassified according to Bethesda 2001 criteria.
Thrall MJ; Pambuccian SE; Stelow EB; McKeon DM; Miller L; Savik K; Gulbahce HE
Cancer; 2008 Jun; 114(3):171-9. PubMed ID: 18454461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Cytohistologic correlation rates between conventional Papanicolaou smears and ThinPrep cervical cytology: a comparison.
Chacho MS; Mattie ME; Schwartz PE
Cancer; 2003 Jun; 99(3):135-40. PubMed ID: 12811853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Pap smears with glandular cell abnormalities: Are they detected by rapid prescreening?
Kanber Y; Charbonneau M; Auger M
Cancer Cytopathol; 2015 Dec; 123(12):739-44. PubMed ID: 26348845
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Factors associated with reduced accuracy in Papanicolaou tests for patients with invasive cervical cancer.
Zhao L; Wentzensen N; Zhang RR; Dunn ST; Gold MA; Wang SS; Schiffman M; Walker JL; Zuna RE
Cancer Cytopathol; 2014 Sep; 122(9):694-701. PubMed ID: 24888458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Papanicolaou smear sensitivity for the detection of adenocarcinoma of the cervix: a study of 49 cases.
Krane JF; Granter SR; Trask CE; Hogan CL; Lee KR
Cancer; 2001 Feb; 93(1):8-15. PubMed ID: 11241260
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Does speculum lubricant affect liquid-based Papanicolaou test adequacy?
Lin SN; Taylor J; Alperstein S; Hoda R; Holcomb K
Cancer Cytopathol; 2014 Mar; 122(3):221-6. PubMed ID: 24254917
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
