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 *

152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 3836072)

  • 1. The adequate Papanicolaou smear revisited.
    Greening SE
    Diagn Cytopathol; 1985; 1(1):55-8. PubMed ID: 3836072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The current status of the Papanicolaou smear.
    Shingleton HM; Patrick RL; Johnston WW; Smith RA
    CA Cancer J Clin; 1995; 45(5):305-20. PubMed ID: 7656133
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Quality of vaginal smear for cervical cancer screening: a concordance study].
    Cendales R; Wiesner C; Murillo RH; Piñeros M; Tovar S; Mejía JC
    Biomedica; 2010; 30(1):107-15. PubMed ID: 20890555
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Cell preparation methods and criteria for sample adequacy. International Academy of Cytology Task Force summary. Diagnostic Cytology Towards the 21st Century: An International Expert Conference and Tutorial.
    McGoogan E; Colgan TJ; Ramzy I; Cochand-Priollet B; Davey DD; Grohs HK; Gurley AM; Husain OA; Hutchinson ML; Knesel EA; Linder J; Mango LJ; Mitchell H; Peebles A; Reith A; Robinowitz M; Sauer T; Shida S; Solomon D; Topalidis T; Wilbur DC; Yamauchi K
    Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):25-32. PubMed ID: 9479321
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Papanicolaou smear sensitivity for adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. A study of 34 cases.
    Lee KR; Minter LJ; Granter SR
    Am J Clin Pathol; 1997 Jan; 107(1):30-5. PubMed ID: 8980364
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The false negative rate in cervical cytology. Comparison of monolayers to conventional smears.
    Sprenger E; Schwarzmann P; Kirkpatrick M; Fox W; Heinzerling RH; Geyer JW; Knesel EA
    Acta Cytol; 1996; 40(1):81-9. PubMed ID: 8604579
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Sensitivity and specificity of endocervical curettage and the endocervical brush for the evaluation of the endocervical canal.
    Andersen W; Frierson H; Barber S; Tabbarah S; Taylor P; Underwood P
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1988 Sep; 159(3):702-7. PubMed ID: 3048105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Update on the Papanicolaou smear: new issues for the 1990s.
    Ollayos CW
    Mil Med; 1997 Aug; 162(8):521-3. PubMed ID: 9271901
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Pap smear refined.
    Oncology (Williston Park); 1997 Aug; 11(8):1125. PubMed ID: 9268975
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Papanicolaou smear adequacy: the effect of the sampling sequence.
    Noel ML; Kazal LA; Glenday MC
    J Am Board Fam Pract; 1993; 6(2):103-7. PubMed ID: 8452061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Papanicolaou smears without endocervical cells. Are they inadequate?
    Kivlahan C; Ingram E
    Acta Cytol; 1986; 30(3):258-60. PubMed ID: 3459326
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Common problems in Papanicolaou smear interpretation.
    DeMay RM
    Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1997 Mar; 121(3):229-38. PubMed ID: 9111106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. The evolution of the Papanicolaou smear.
    Tambouret RH
    Clin Obstet Gynecol; 2013 Mar; 56(1):3-9. PubMed ID: 23314726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Papanicolaou smear: can we make a good test better? Technical and interpretive challenges for the practitioner.
    Eltabbakh GH; Eltabbakh GD
    J Womens Health Gend Based Med; 1999 May; 8(4):469-76. PubMed ID: 10839701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The determination of Papanicolaou smear adequacy using a semiquantitative method to evaluate cellularity.
    Valente PT; Schantz HD; Trabal JF
    Diagn Cytopathol; 1991; 7(6):576-80. PubMed ID: 1769285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Pap smears. Still a reliable screening tool for cervical cancer.
    Stack PS
    Postgrad Med; 1997 Apr; 101(4):207-8, 211-4. PubMed ID: 9126213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Controlled evaluation of implementing the Cytobrush technique to improve Papanicolaou smear quality.
    Murata PJ; Johnson RA; McNicoll KE
    Obstet Gynecol; 1990 Apr; 75(4):690-5. PubMed ID: 2314788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Does gel affect cytology or comfort in the screening papanicolaou smear?
    Gilson M; Desai A; Cardoza-Favarato G; Vroman P; Thornton JA
    J Am Board Fam Med; 2006; 19(4):340-4. PubMed ID: 16809647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. A decade has passed...the Pap smear and cervical cancer.
    Linder J
    Am J Clin Pathol; 1997 Nov; 108(5):492-8. PubMed ID: 9353086
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.