These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3051871)

  • 1. Detection of abnormal cervical smears. A comparative study.
    Pistofides GA; Brown ER; Harris VG; Grainger JM; Spring JE; Carr JV; Chapman MG
    Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 1988; 67(2):153-4. PubMed ID: 3051871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Collection devices for obtaining cervical cytology samples.
    Martin-Hirsch P; Jarvis G; Kitchener H; Lilford R
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2000; (3):CD001036. PubMed ID: 10908482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The cytological detection of persistent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia after local ablative treatment: a comparison of sampling devices.
    Hughes RG; Haddad NG; Smart GE; Colquhoun M; McGoogan E; MacIntyre CC; Prescott RJ
    Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1992 Jun; 99(6):498-502. PubMed ID: 1637767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The Multispatula; a spatula adjustable to the shape of the individual cervix.
    Vierhout ME
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 1987 Dec; 26(4):343-7. PubMed ID: 3691943
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Collection devices for obtaining cervical cytology samples.
    Martin-Hirsch P; Jarvis G; Kitchener H; Lilford R
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2000; 2000(2):CD001036. PubMed ID: 10796736
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Performance of the Cytobrush in patients at risk for cervical pathology: does it add anything to the wooden spatula?
    Van Erp EJ; Blaschek-Lut CH; Arentz NP; Trimbos JB
    Eur J Gynaecol Oncol; 1988; 9(6):456-60. PubMed ID: 3234423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A randomized trial of three methods of obtaining Papanicolaou smears.
    Pretorius RG; Sadeghi M; Fotheringham N; Semrad N; Watring WG
    Obstet Gynecol; 1991 Nov; 78(5 Pt 1):831-6. PubMed ID: 1923208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Consequences of the introduction of combined spatula and Cytobrush sampling for cervical cytology. Improvements in smear quality and detection rates.
    Boon ME; Alons-van Kordelaar JJ; Rietveld-Scheffers PE
    Acta Cytol; 1986; 30(3):264-70. PubMed ID: 3521176
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Efficacy of the cytobrush versus the cotton swab in the collection of endocervical cells.
    Kristensen GB; Hølund B; Grinsted P
    Acta Cytol; 1989; 33(6):849-51. PubMed ID: 2588918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Papanicolaou smear adequacy: the cervical cytobrush and Ayre spatula compared with the extended-tip spatula.
    Noel ML
    J Am Board Fam Pract; 1989; 2(3):156-60. PubMed ID: 2665423
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Controlled trial of a new cervical spatula.
    Wolfendale MR; Howe-Guest R; Usherwood MM; Draper GJ
    Br Med J (Clin Res Ed); 1987 Jan; 294(6563):33-5. PubMed ID: 3101790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Cervical cytology: a randomized comparison of four sampling methods.
    McCord ML; Stovall TG; Meric JL; Summitt RL; Coleman SA
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1992 Jun; 166(6 Pt 1):1772-7; discussion 1777-9. PubMed ID: 1615986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A randomized control trial of two cervical spatulas.
    Woodman CJ; Yates M; Williams DR; Ward K; Jordan J; Luesley D
    Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1991 Jan; 98(1):21-4. PubMed ID: 1998627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparative yield of endocervical and metaplastic cells. Two sampling techniques: wooden spatula and cytology brush.
    Lo L; Jordan J
    Can Fam Physician; 1995 Sep; 41():1497-502. PubMed ID: 8520238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Effect of the size of extended, modified Ayre's spatula on endocervical cell yield in the postmenopausal women.
    Parnpoonsarp W; Ploarsa P; Arpakorn V
    J Med Assoc Thai; 2009 Jun; 92 Suppl 3():S9-14. PubMed ID: 19702064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A randomized comparative trial of the performance of the Ayre and the Armovical cervical spatulae.
    Bounds W; Grubb C; Metaxas N; Vessey M
    Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1976 Dec; 83(12):981-7. PubMed ID: 1009036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A randomized clinical trial comparing the Cytobrush and cotton swab for Papanicolaou smears.
    Koonings PP; Dickinson K; d'Ablaing G; Schlaerth JB
    Obstet Gynecol; 1992 Aug; 80(2):241-5. PubMed ID: 1635737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Paired cervical smears: a method of reducing the false-negative rate in population screening.
    Beilby JO; Bourne R; Guillebaud J; Steele ST
    Obstet Gynecol; 1982 Jul; 60(1):46-8. PubMed ID: 7088450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comparison of cytobrush with cotton swab for endocervical cytologic sampling.
    Neinstein LS; Rabinovitz S; Recalde A
    J Adolesc Health Care; 1989 Jul; 10(4):305-7. PubMed ID: 2732111
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A comparison between the Accu-Pap device and the extended-tip wooden Ayre spatula for cervical cytology sampling.
    Stock RJ; Thurmond AI; Passmore A
    Acta Cytol; 1988; 32(3):307-10. PubMed ID: 3376697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.