140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32943102)
1. Clinician-ordered peripheral blood smears have low reimbursement and variable clinical value: a three-institution study, with suggestions for operational efficiency.
Beckman AK; Ng VL; Jaye DL; Gaddh M; Williams SA; Yohe SL; Zhang L; Linden MA
Diagn Pathol; 2020 Sep; 15(1):112. PubMed ID: 32943102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Laboratory productivity and the rate of manual peripheral blood smear review: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 95,141 complete blood count determinations performed in 263 institutions.
Novis DA; Walsh M; Wilkinson D; St Louis M; Ben-Ezra J
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 2006 May; 130(5):596-601. PubMed ID: 16683868
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Educational cost-effective intervention to reduce pathologist's peripheral blood smears reviews with non-contributory findings: an academic institution experience.
Lollie TK; Parks R; Bakic L; Ziman A; Pullarkat S
J Clin Pathol; 2022 Mar; 75(3):154-158. PubMed ID: 34782422
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Medicolegal affairs. International Academy of Cytology Task Force summary. Diagnostic Cytology Towards the 21st Century: An International Expert Conference and Tutorial.
Frable WJ; Austin RM; Greening SE; Collins RJ; Hillman RL; Kobler TP; Koss LG; Mitchell H; Perey R; Rosenthal DL; Sidoti MS; Somrak TM
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):76-119; discussion 120-32. PubMed ID: 9479326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The preparation of additional smears from a cervical scrape: impact on the rate of detection of cervical neoplasia.
Al-Awadhi R; Byrne M; Coleman DV
Cytopathology; 2001 Jun; 12(3):151-6. PubMed ID: 11380556
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Thin-layer technology: tempered enthusiasm.
Kurtycz DF; Hoerl HD
Diagn Cytopathol; 2000 Jul; 23(1):1-5. PubMed ID: 10907923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Pap test--with or without vaginal smear?
Milicić-Juhas V; Perić M; Pajtler M; Prvulović I; Curzik D
Coll Antropol; 2010 Mar; 34(1):69-74. PubMed ID: 20437636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A study of the effect of introducing a restrictive cervical screening policy on laboratory workload and cervical cancer detection rates.
Channer JL; Mackenzie EF
Cytopathology; 1990; 1(1):13-7. PubMed ID: 2130995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Review of cervical smears from 76 women with invasive cervical cancer: cytological findings and medicolegal implications.
Coleman DV; Poznansky JJ
Cytopathology; 2006 Jun; 17(3):127-36. PubMed ID: 16719855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Telecytology: intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of cervical-vaginal smears.
Alli PM; Ollayos CW; Thompson LD; Kapadia I; Butler DR; Williams BH; Rosenthal DL; O'leary TJ
Hum Pathol; 2001 Dec; 32(12):1318-22. PubMed ID: 11774163
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Adequacy of cellular material in split-sampling of cervical scrapings for routine cancer screening: an analysis of 702 smears.
Othman N; Othman NH
Malays J Pathol; 2012 Dec; 34(2):115-21. PubMed ID: 23424773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Cervico-vaginal smears. Cytologic examination.
Horton R
Calif Med; 1966 May; 104(5):366-7. PubMed ID: 5942011
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Does morphology matter in 2017? An approach to morphologic clues in non-neoplastic blood and bone marrow disorders.
Chabot-Richards DS; Foucar K
Int J Lab Hematol; 2017 May; 39 Suppl 1():23-30. PubMed ID: 28447424
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The effect of nonscreening smears on screening smear results: a statistical analysis with its implications for the NHS cervical screening programme.
Rice S; Slater DN; Hewer EM
Cytopathology; 2000 Jun; 11(3):158-65. PubMed ID: 10877275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Influence of smear quality on the rate of detecting significant cervical cytologic abnormalities.
Henry JA; Wadehra V
Acta Cytol; 1996; 40(3):529-35. PubMed ID: 8669190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Clinical Utility of Ordered Pathology Blood Smear Reviews - an Overused Resource?
Kurt-Mangold ME; Grieme CV; Krasowski MD; Rosenthal NS
Clin Lab; 2018 Jan; 64(1):99-104. PubMed ID: 29479875
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Predictors of an unsatisfactory conventional cervical cytology smear.
Paulin H; Geldenhuys L; Naugler C
J Obstet Gynaecol Can; 2011 Jul; 33(7):725-728. PubMed ID: 21749749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Effectiveness of AutoPap system location-guided screening in the evaluation of cervical cytology smears.
Stevens MW; Milne AJ; Parkinson IH; Nespolon WW; Fazzalari NL; Arora N; Dodd TJ
Diagn Cytopathol; 2004 Aug; 31(2):94-9. PubMed ID: 15282720
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. No increased risk for cervical cancer after a broader definition of a negative Pap smear.
Rebolj M; van Ballegooijen M; van Kemenade F; Looman C; Boer R; Habbema JD
Int J Cancer; 2008 Dec; 123(11):2632-5. PubMed ID: 18767046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
