240 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7070726)
1. Effect of cytologic screening on the detection of cervical carcinoma.
Yajima A; Mori T; Sato S; Wakisaka T; Suzuki M
Obstet Gynecol; 1982 May; 59(5):565-8. PubMed ID: 7070726
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Results of cytologic mass screening in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Soost HJ; Bockmühl B; Zock H
Acta Cytol; 1982; 26(4):445-52. PubMed ID: 6957096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: sensitivity of detection by cervical smear: will cytologic screening for adenocarcinoma in situ reduce incidence rates for adenocarcinoma.
Smith HO; Padilla LA
Cancer; 2002 Dec; 96(6):319-22. PubMed ID: 12478677
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. [Cervical cancer in Frederiksborg County 1990-1991].
Ingeholm P; Glenthøj A
Ugeskr Laeger; 1996 Feb; 158(7):915-8. PubMed ID: 8638329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Improvement in protection against adenocarcinoma of the cervix resulting from participation in cervical screening.
Mitchell H; Hocking J; Saville M
Cancer; 2003 Dec; 99(6):336-41. PubMed ID: 14681940
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Studies on the prevalence and incidence rate of epithelial neoplasia of the uterine cervix by mass survey using mobile units].
Hando T; Sugimori H; Higashiiwai H; Kuroshima Y; Nishiya I; Sugimoto O; Noda K
Nihon Sanka Fujinka Gakkai Zasshi; 1985 Nov; 37(11):2287-90. PubMed ID: 4078419
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [Previous cytology in patients with carcinoma of the cervix].
Hando T; Sugimori H; Higashiiwai H; Kuroshima Y; Nishiya I; Sugimoto O
Nihon Sanka Fujinka Gakkai Zasshi; 1986 Oct; 38(10):1692-6. PubMed ID: 3782952
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Appropriate frequency of mass-screening for uterine cervical cancer.
Iwanari O
Nihon Sanka Fujinka Gakkai Zasshi; 1987 Oct; 39(10):1799-805. PubMed ID: 3429977
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Severe cervical glandular cell lesions and severe cervical combined lesions: predictive value of the papanicolaou smear.
van Aspert-van Erp AJ; Smedts FM; Vooijs GP
Cancer; 2004 Aug; 102(4):210-7. PubMed ID: 15368312
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [No major difference between population screening for cervical carcinoma at the present screening interval of 5 years and the former interval of 3 years].
Vinkesteijn AS; Siemens FC; Boon ME; Kuypers JC; Kok LP
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2004 Sep; 148(36):1781-5. PubMed ID: 15495942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Results of the Leiden mass screening for cervix uteri carcinoma; the 'young' (24-34 years) versus the 'old' (35-54 years) group of women].
Boon ME; de Graaff Guilloud-Gentenaar JC; Beck S
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1990 Aug; 134(32):1545-9. PubMed ID: 2392176
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Results of the clinical evaluation of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGCUS) detected on cervical cytology screening.
Kennedy AW; Salmieri SS; Wirth SL; Biscotti CV; Tuason LJ; Travarca MJ
Gynecol Oncol; 1996 Oct; 63(1):14-8. PubMed ID: 8898161
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Epithelial dysplasia of the cervix uteri. The population screening for cervical carcinoma in the County of Maribo, 1967-69.
Berget A
Dan Med Bull; 1974 Aug; 21(5):169-71. PubMed ID: 4851895
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Limited education as a risk factor in cervical cancer.
Corral F; Cueva P; Yépez J; Montes E
Bull Pan Am Health Organ; 1996 Dec; 30(4):322-9. PubMed ID: 9041743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Severe cervical glandular cell lesions with coexisting squamous cell lesions.
van Aspert-van Erp AJ; Smedts FM; Vooijs GP
Cancer; 2004 Aug; 102(4):218-27. PubMed ID: 15368313
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Cytologic features of squamous cell carcinoma in situ involving endocervical glands in endocervical cytobrush specimens.
Selvaggi SM
Acta Cytol; 1994; 38(5):687-92. PubMed ID: 8091898
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Efficacy of a hospital based cytology screening program.
Das DK; Murthy NS; Bhatnager P; Juneja A; Sharma S; Pant JN; Bhatt NC; Sharma KC; Luthra UK
Neoplasma; 1992; 39(6):381-4. PubMed ID: 1491729
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The limitation of screening effect. A review of cervical disorders in previously screened women.
Gad C; Koch F
Acta Cytol; 1977; 21(6):719-22. PubMed ID: 274877
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Review of the screening history of Alberta women with invasive cervical cancer.
Stuart GC; McGregor SE; Duggan MA; Nation JG
CMAJ; 1997 Sep; 157(5):513-9. PubMed ID: 9294389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Analysis of the histopathological pattern of carcinoma of the cervix in Ilorin, Nigeria.
Adeniji KA
Niger J Med; 2001; 10(4):165-8. PubMed ID: 11805997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
