102 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 4733861)
1. Effects of observer variation in population screening for cervical carcinoma.
Lambourne A; Lederer H
J Clin Pathol; 1973 Aug; 26(8):564-9. PubMed ID: 4733861
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Analysis of the intralaboratory diagnostic variability in the Imola cervical screening program].
Fabbris E; Bucchi L; Folicaldi S; Amadori A; Ghidoni D; Medri M; Bondi A
Pathologica; 1998 Apr; 90(2):127-32. PubMed ID: 9619055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The influence of sample takers on the cellular composition of cervical smears.
Vooijs GP; Elias A; van der Graaf Y; Poelen-van de Berg M
Acta Cytol; 1986; 30(3):251-7. PubMed ID: 3459325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Is it reality or an illusion that liquid-based cytology is better than conventional cervical smears?
Moseley R
Cytopathology; 2002 Apr; 13(2):135-6. PubMed ID: 11952756
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Conventional Pap smear and liquid-based cytology as screening tools in low-resource settings in Latin America: experience of the Latin American screening study.
Longatto-Filho A; Maeda MY; Erzen M; Branca M; Roteli-Martins C; Naud P; Derchain SF; Hammes L; Matos J; Gontijo R; Sarian LO; Lima TP; Tatti S; Syrjänen S; Syrjänen K
Acta Cytol; 2005; 49(5):500-6. PubMed ID: 16334026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. False negative rate in cervical cytology.
van der Graaf Y; Vooijs GP
J Clin Pathol; 1987 Apr; 40(4):438-42. PubMed ID: 3584488
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. [Cytological diagnosis and invasive cervix cancer].
Gårdmark S; Johnsson JE; Sjöberg NO; Stormby N
Lakartidningen; 1979 Jan; 76(5):279-80. PubMed ID: 759773
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Cervical cancers diagnosed after negative results on cervical cytology: perspective in the 1980s.
Mitchell H; Medley G; Giles G
BMJ; 1990 Jun; 300(6740):1622-6. PubMed ID: 2372641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Does a zero error standard exist for the Papanicolaou smear? A pathologist's perspective.
Frable WJ
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1997 Mar; 121(3):301-10. PubMed ID: 9111124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Defending the pap smear: a proactive approach to the litigation threat in gynecologic cytology.
McCoy DR
Am J Clin Pathol; 2000 Nov; 114 Suppl():S52-8. PubMed ID: 11996170
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Patients with cervical cancer: why did screening not prevent these cases?
de Bie RP; Vergers-Spooren HC; Massuger LF; Siebers AG; Salet-van der Pol MR; Vedder JE; Melchers WJ; Bulten J; Bekkers RL
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2011 Jul; 205(1):64.e1-7. PubMed ID: 21481838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. False negative rate in mass screening for cervical cancer.
Sato S; Mikino H; Matsunaga G; Yajima A
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(3):836-7. PubMed ID: 9622728
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. [Vaginal pipette and cervical smear. Comparison of their diagnostic reliability in screening].
Mikkelsen JF; Arffmann E
Ugeskr Laeger; 1976 Apr; 138(17):1021-5. PubMed ID: 1265884
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
