102 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29904955)
1. Performance of rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review as internal quality control methods for cervical cytopathology.
Tobias AHG; Vitalino AC; Rezende MT; Oliveira RRR; Coura-Vital W; Amaral RG; Carneiro CM
Cytopathology; 2018 Oct; 29(5):428-435. PubMed ID: 29904955
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Improvement in the routine screening of cervical smears: A study using rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review as internal quality control methods.
Tavares SB; Alves de Sousa NL; Manrique EJ; Pinheiro de Albuquerque ZB; Zeferino LC; Amaral RG
Cancer Cytopathol; 2011 Dec; 119(6):367-76. PubMed ID: 21954191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Rapid (partial) prescreening of cervical smears: the quality control method of choice?
Brooke D; Dudding N; Sutton J
Cytopathology; 2002 Aug; 13(4):191-9. PubMed ID: 12269891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Rapid pre-screening of cervical smears as a method of internal quality control in a cervical screening programme.
Tavares SB; de Sousa NL; Manrique EJ; de Albuquerque ZB; Zeferino LC; Amaral RG
Cytopathology; 2008 Aug; 19(4):254-9. PubMed ID: 18476988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Rapid prescreening is as effective at reducing screening error as postscreening with the FocalPoint automated screening device.
Wilgenbusch H; Mueller G; Neal M; Renshaw AA
Diagn Cytopathol; 2011 Nov; 39(11):818-21. PubMed ID: 20949451
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Rapid prescreen of cervical liquid-based cytology preparations: results of a study in an academic medical center.
Frable WJ; Pedigo MA; Powers CN; Yarrell C; Ortiz B; Clark ME; Ebron T
Diagn Cytopathol; 2012 Aug; 40(8):691-7. PubMed ID: 22807384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Internal quality control for cervical cytopathology: comparison of potential false-negatives detected at rapid prescreening and at 100% rapid review.
Tavares SB; de Souza NL; Manrique EJ; Azara CZ; da Silveira EA; Amaral RG
Acta Cytol; 2014; 58(5):439-45. PubMed ID: 25376096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Rapid prescreening as a quality assurance measure in cervical cytology.
Repse-Fokter A; Caks-Golec T
Acta Cytol; 2009; 53(3):268-70. PubMed ID: 19534265
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Metaanalysis of the accuracy of rapid prescreening relative to full screening of pap smears.
Arbyn M; Schenck U; Ellison E; Hanselaar A
Cancer; 2003 Feb; 99(1):9-16. PubMed ID: 12589640
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Correlation of cytotechnologists' parameters with their performance in rapid prescreening of papanicolaou smears.
Djemli A; Khetani K; Case BW; Auger M
Cancer; 2006 Oct; 108(5):306-10. PubMed ID: 16948125
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Performance characteristics of rapid (30-second) prescreening. Implications for calculating the false-negative rate and comparison with other quality assurance techniques.
Renshaw AA; Cronin JA; Minter LJ; Nappi D; Whitman T; Jiroutek M; Cibas ES
Am J Clin Pathol; 1999 Apr; 111(4):517-22. PubMed ID: 10191772
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Rapid review (partial rescreening) of cervical cytology. Four years experience and quality assurance implications.
Faraker CA; Boxer ME
J Clin Pathol; 1996 Jul; 49(7):587-91. PubMed ID: 8813961
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. Evaluation of the PAPNET cytologic screening system for quality control of cervical smears.
Koss LG; Lin E; Schreiber K; Elgert P; Mango L
Am J Clin Pathol; 1994 Feb; 101(2):220-9. PubMed ID: 8116579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
