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 *

79 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6996484)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. 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]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Evaluation of the endocervical Cytobrush and Cervex-Brush in pregnant women.
    Paraiso MF; Brady K; Helmchen R; Roat TW
    Obstet Gynecol; 1994 Oct; 84(4):539-43. PubMed ID: 8090390
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. [The use of the cervix brush for early diagnosis of cervix uteri cancer: quality of the smear].
    Weyler J; Engels H
    Arch Belg; 1989; 47(1-4):81-4. PubMed ID: 2610580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Exploiting the "toothpick effect" of the Cytobrush by plastic embedding of cervical samples.
    Boon ME; Zeppa P; Ouwerkerk-Noordam E; Kok LP
    Acta Cytol; 1991; 35(1):57-63. PubMed ID: 1994636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. The Cytobrush effect on Pap smear adequacy.
    Davey-Sullivan B; Gearhart J; Evers CG; Cason Z; Replogle WH
    Fam Pract Res J; 1991 Mar; 11(1):57-64. PubMed ID: 2028815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Ayre v Aylesbury cervical spatulas.
    Goorney BP; Lacey CJ; Sutton J
    Genitourin Med; 1989 Jun; 65(3):161-2. PubMed ID: 2759604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Nylon brush improves collection of cervical cytologic specimens.
    Dotters DJ; Carney CN; Droegemueller W
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1988 Oct; 159(4):814-9. PubMed ID: 3177528
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. Papanicolaou smear cell recovery techniques used by primary care physicians.
    Clement KD; Christenson PD
    J Am Board Fam Pract; 1990; 3(4):253-8. PubMed ID: 2248091
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. A comparison of the three most common Papanicolaou smear collection techniques.
    Germain M; Heaton R; Erickson D; Henry M; Nash J; O'Connor D
    Obstet Gynecol; 1994 Aug; 84(2):168-73. PubMed ID: 8041524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Comparison of Cytobrush sampling, spatula sampling and combined Cytobrush-spatula sampling of the uterine cervix.
    Buntinx F; Boon ME; Beck S; Knottnerus JA; Essed GG
    Acta Cytol; 1991; 35(1):64-8. PubMed ID: 1994637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Diagnostic efficacy and validity of the ThinPrep method in cervical cytology.
    Tezuka F; Oikawa H; Shuki H; Higashiiwai H
    Acta Cytol; 1996; 40(3):513-8. PubMed ID: 8669188
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. [Cytological screening--the technique of cytological specimen taking and its influence on the quality of the method].
    Ivanov S
    Akush Ginekol (Sofiia); 2007; 46(8):26-7. PubMed ID: 18642552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Safety, efficacy and cost of three cervical cytology sampling devices in a prenatal clinic.
    Smith-Levitin M; Hernandez E; Anderson L; Heller P
    J Reprod Med; 1996 Oct; 41(10):749-53. PubMed ID: 8913977
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.