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 *

96 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6683215)

  • 21. Comparative evaluation of seven cell collection devices for cervical smears.
    Kohlberger PD; Stani J; Gitsch G; Kieback DG; Breitenecker G
    Acta Cytol; 1999; 43(6):1023-6. PubMed ID: 10578973
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Effect of the special properties of monolayer cell preparations for automated cervical cytology on visual evaluation and classification. With an estimation of the number of cells required to be screened.
    Schwarz G; Schwarz M; Schenck U
    Anal Quant Cytol; 1983 Sep; 5(3):189-93. PubMed ID: 6651018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. [Management of an abnormal cervical smear. National Accreditation and Health Evaluation Agency].
    J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris); 1999 Jul; 28(4):310-8. PubMed ID: 10480061
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. The minimally abnormal Papanicolaou smear.
    Brotzman GL; Julian TM
    Am Fam Physician; 1996 Mar; 53(4):1154-62. PubMed ID: 8629563
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Exfoliative cytology of primary poorly differentiated (small-cell) neuroendocrine carcinoma of the uterine cervix in ThinPrep material: a case report.
    Hoerl HD; Schink J; Hartenbach E; Wagner JL; Kurtycz DF
    Diagn Cytopathol; 2000 Jul; 23(1):14-8. PubMed ID: 10907925
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. New technologies in gynecologic cytology.
    Bishop JW; Marshall CJ; Bentz JS
    J Reprod Med; 2000 Sep; 45(9):701-19. PubMed ID: 11027079
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Efficacy of cotton-tipped applicators for obtaining cells from the uterine cervix for Papanicolaou smears.
    Shen JT; Nalick RH; Schlaerth JB; Morrow CP
    Acta Cytol; 1984; 28(5):541-5. PubMed ID: 6592916
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Improving the adequacy of Pap smears.
    Baker RM
    Am Fam Physician; 1989 Jun; 39(6):109-14. PubMed ID: 2729036
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Analysis of five sampling methods for the preparation of cervical smears.
    Boon ME; de Graaff Guilloud JC; Rietveld WJ
    Acta Cytol; 1989; 33(6):843-8. PubMed ID: 2588917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Papanicolaou smear adequacy: effect of different techniques in specific fertility states.
    Hamblin JE; Brock CD; Litchfield L; Dias J
    J Fam Pract; 1985 Mar; 20(3):257-60. PubMed ID: 3973541
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Diagnostic accuracy of squamous cervical lesions studied in spatula-cytobrush smears.
    Alons-van Kordelaar JJ; Boon ME
    Acta Cytol; 1988; 32(6):801-4. PubMed ID: 3059733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Simplified endometrial testing by the Milan-Markley technic.
    Markley RL; Milan AR
    South Med J; 1979 Apr; 72(4):452-5. PubMed ID: 432686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Cervical cytology. Increased sensitivity with a second cervical smear.
    Luthy DA; Briggs RM; Buyco A; Eschenbach A
    Obstet Gynecol; 1978 Jun; 51(6):713-7. PubMed ID: 662251
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. 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]  

  • 37. In search of more representative cervical cytology. A preliminary prospective study.
    Brink AL; du Toit JP; Deale CJ
    S Afr Med J; 1989 Jul; 76(2):55-7. PubMed ID: 2749424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The characteristics of false negative cervical smears--implications for the UK cervical cancer screening programme.
    Baker RW; O'Sullivan JP; Hanley J; Coleman DV
    J Clin Pathol; 1999 May; 52(5):358-62. PubMed ID: 10560356
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. [Cervix cytology: Cervex Brush versus conventional cotton swab].
    Altermatt HJ; Wyler K; Fravi R; Liu X; Kraft R; Dreher E
    Praxis (Bern 1994); 1997 Jun; 86(24):1029-33. PubMed ID: 9312820
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.