181 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30115670)
1. Comparison of standard single-bite with multiple-bite biopsy forceps for collection of gastrointestinal biopsies in dogs: a prospective study.
Edery EG; Scase T; Kisielewicz C; Dhumeaux MP
Vet Rec; 2018 Nov; 183(20):624. PubMed ID: 30115670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluating Quality and Adequacy of Gastrointestinal Samples Collected using Reusable or Disposable Forceps.
Cartwright JA; Hill TL; Smith S; Shaw D
J Vet Intern Med; 2016 Jul; 30(4):1002-7. PubMed ID: 27255591
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Diagnostic quality of biopsy specimens: comparison between a conventional biopsy forceps and multibite forceps.
Fantin AC; Neuweiler J; Binek JS; Suter WR; Meyenberger C
Gastrointest Endosc; 2001 Nov; 54(5):600-4. PubMed ID: 11677476
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Effect of endoscopic forceps on quality of duodenal mucosal biopsy in healthy dogs.
Goutal-Landry CM; Mansell J; Ryan KA; Gaschen FP
J Vet Intern Med; 2013; 27(3):456-61. PubMed ID: 23600705
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of Pelican single-use multibite biopsy forceps and traditional double-bite forceps: evaluation in a porcine model.
Zaidman JS; Frederick WG; Furth EE; Su CG; Ginsberg GG
Gastrointest Endosc; 2006 Oct; 64(4):582-8. PubMed ID: 16996354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of routinely used intestinal biopsy forceps in dogs: an ex vivo histopathological approach.
Dahan J; Semin MO; Monton C; Amiriantz S; Concordet D; Raymond-Letron I; Dossin O
J Small Anim Pract; 2017 Mar; 58(3):162-167. PubMed ID: 28267217
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of weight, depth, and diagnostic adequacy of specimens obtained with 16 different biopsy forceps designed for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
Danesh BJ; Burke M; Newman J; Aylott A; Whitfield P; Cotton PB
Gut; 1985 Mar; 26(3):227-31. PubMed ID: 3972269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A prospective comparison of performance of biopsy forceps used in single passage with multiple bites during upper endoscopy.
Chu KM; Yuen ST; Wong WM; Wong KW; Lai KC; Hu WH; Leung SY; Yuen MF; Lam SK; Wong BC
Endoscopy; 2003 Apr; 35(4):338-42. PubMed ID: 12664392
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Influence of endoscopic biopsy forceps characteristics on tissue specimens: results of a prospective randomized study.
Woods KL; Anand BS; Cole RA; Osato MS; Genta RM; Malaty H; Gurer IE; Rossi DD
Gastrointest Endosc; 1999 Feb; 49(2):177-83. PubMed ID: 9925695
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Adequacy of mucosal sampling with the "two-bite" forceps technique: a prospective, randomized, blinded study.
Padda S; Shah I; Ramirez FC
Gastrointest Endosc; 2003 Feb; 57(2):170-3. PubMed ID: 12556778
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Adequacy of disposable biopsy forceps for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a direct comparison with reusable forceps.
Yang R; Vuitch F; Wright K; McCarthy J
Gastrointest Endosc; 1990; 36(4):379-81. PubMed ID: 2210280
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of 3 Handling Techniques for Endoscopically Obtained Gastric and Duodenal Biopsy Specimens: A Prospective Study in Dogs and Cats.
Ruiz GC; Reyes-Gomez E; Hall EJ; Freiche V
J Vet Intern Med; 2016 Jul; 30(4):1014-21. PubMed ID: 27396683
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of two minimally invasive techniques for liver biopsy collection in dogs.
Fernandez N; Del-Pozo J; Shaw D; Marques AIC
J Small Anim Pract; 2017 Oct; 58(10):555-561. PubMed ID: 28737268
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of the quality of endoscopically obtained esophageal biopsies in the dog.
Münster M; Vieth M; Hörauf A
Tierarztl Prax Ausg K Kleintiere Heimtiere; 2013; 41(6):375-82. PubMed ID: 24326877
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A system of multiple biopsy forceps.
Taylor TV
Curr Surg; 2004; 61(6):594-6. PubMed ID: 15590032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Yield of tissue sampling for subepithelial lesions evaluated by EUS: a comparison between forceps biopsies and endoscopic submucosal resection.
Cantor MJ; Davila RE; Faigel DO
Gastrointest Endosc; 2006 Jul; 64(1):29-34. PubMed ID: 16813799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effect of tissue processing on assessment of endoscopic intestinal biopsies in dogs and cats.
Willard MD; Moore GE; Denton BD; Day MJ; Mansell J; Bilzer T; Wilcock B; Gualtieri M; Olivero D; Lecoindre P; Twedt DC; Collett MG; Hall EJ; Jergens AE; Simpson JW; Else RW; Washabau RJ
J Vet Intern Med; 2010; 24(1):84-9. PubMed ID: 20002551
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Improved specimen adequacy using jumbo biopsy forceps in patients with Barrett's esophagus.
Martinek J; Maluskova J; Stefanova M; Tuckova I; Suchanek S; Vackova Z; Krajciova J; Kollar M; Zavoral M; Spicak J
World J Gastroenterol; 2015 May; 21(17):5328-35. PubMed ID: 25954107
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Biopsy specimens obtained with small-caliber endoscopes have comparable diagnostic performances than those obtained with conventional endoscopes: a prospective study on 1335 specimens.
Walter T; Chesnay AL; Dumortier J; Mège-LeChevallier F; Hervieu V; Guillaud O; Lapalus MG; Lépilliez V; Fumex F; Ponchon T; Scoazec JY
J Clin Gastroenterol; 2010 Jan; 44(1):12-7. PubMed ID: 19661817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. An observer-blinded, prospective, randomized comparison of forceps for endoscopic esophageal biopsy.
Schafer TW; Hollis-Perry KM; Mondragon RM; Brann OS
Gastrointest Endosc; 2002 Feb; 55(2):192-6. PubMed ID: 11818921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
