96 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7669924)
1. An Australian trial of ThinPrep: a new cytopreparatory technique.
Laverty CR; Thurloe JK; Redman NL; Farnsworth A
Cytopathology; 1995 Jun; 6(3):140-8. PubMed ID: 7669924
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of fluid-based, thin-layer processing and conventional Papanicolaou methods for uterine cervical cytology.
Wang TY; Chen HS; Yang YC; Tsou MC
J Formos Med Assoc; 1999 Jul; 98(7):500-5. PubMed ID: 10463000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Efficacy of ThinPrep preparation of cervical smears: a 1,000-case, investigator-sponsored study.
Awen C; Hathway S; Eddy W; Voskuil R; Janes C
Diagn Cytopathol; 1994; 11(1):33-6; discussion 36-7. PubMed ID: 7956657
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Split-sample analysis of discarded cells from liquid-based Pap smear sampling devices.
Rinas AC; Mittman BW; Le LV; Hartmann K; Cayless J; Singh HK
Acta Cytol; 2006; 50(1):55-62. PubMed ID: 16514841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Performance of ThinPrep liquid-based cervical cytology in comparison with conventionally prepared Papanicolaou smears: a quantitative survey.
Abulafia O; Pezzullo JC; Sherer DM
Gynecol Oncol; 2003 Jul; 90(1):137-44. PubMed ID: 12821354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Liquid phase cytology in the primary screening for cervical cancer: a multicenter study].
Monsonégo J; Autillo-Touati A; Bergeron C; Dachez R; Liaras J; Saurel J; Zerat L; Chatelain P; Mottot C
Gynecol Obstet Fertil; 2001 Nov; 29(11):799-807. PubMed ID: 11770273
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [Comparison of the ThinPrep monolayer technique and conventional cervical Pap smears in a high-risk population using the Munich II nomenclature].
Lellé RJ; Cordes A; Regidor M; Maier E; Flenker H
Gynakol Geburtshilfliche Rundsch; 2007; 47(2):81-7. PubMed ID: 17440269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap test as an adjunct to the conventional Pap smear.
Roberts JM; Gurley AM; Thurloe JK; Bowditch R; Laverty CR
Med J Aust; 1997 Nov; 167(9):466-9. PubMed ID: 9397059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Specimen adequacy of ThinPrep sample preparations in a direct-to-vial study.
Corkill M; Knapp D; Martin J; Hutchinson ML
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):39-44. PubMed ID: 9022724
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. ThinPrep Pap Test. Accuracy for glandular disease.
Ashfaq R; Gibbons D; Vela C; Saboorian MH; Iliya F
Acta Cytol; 1999; 43(1):81-5. PubMed ID: 9987455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of the CytoRich slide preparation process.
Laverty CR; Farnsworth A; Thurloe JK; Grieves A; Bowditch R
Anal Quant Cytol Histol; 1997 Jun; 19(3):239-45. PubMed ID: 9196807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Homogeneous sampling accounts for the increased diagnostic accuracy using the ThinPrep Processor.
Hutchinson ML; Isenstein LM; Goodman A; Hurley AA; Douglass KL; Mui KK; Patten FW; Zahniser DJ
Am J Clin Pathol; 1994 Feb; 101(2):215-9. PubMed ID: 8116578
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Cell block findings from residual PreservCyt samples in unsatisfactory ThinPrep Paps: no additional benefit.
Kabbani W; Raisanen J; Thomas S; Saboorian MH; Ashfaq R
Diagn Cytopathol; 2002 Oct; 27(4):238-43. PubMed ID: 12357503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Liquid-based cytology for primary cervical cancer screening: a multi-centre study.
Monsonego J; Autillo-Touati A; Bergeron C; Dachez R; Liaras J; Saurel J; Zerat L; Chatelain P; Mottot C
Br J Cancer; 2001 Feb; 84(3):360-6. PubMed ID: 11161401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening.
Lee KR; Ashfaq R; Birdsong GG; Corkill ME; McIntosh KM; Inhorn SL
Obstet Gynecol; 1997 Aug; 90(2):278-84. PubMed ID: 9241308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Which are more correctly diagnosed: conventional Papanicolaou smears or Thinprep samples? A comparative study of 9 years of external quality-assurance testing.
Cummings MC; Marquart L; Pelecanos AM; Perkins G; Papadimos D; O'Rourke P; Ross JA
Cancer Cytopathol; 2015 Feb; 123(2):108-16. PubMed ID: 25487287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparing the accuracy of ThinPrep Pap tests and conventional Papanicolaou smears on the basis of the histologic diagnosis: a clinical study of women with cervical abnormalities.
Park IA; Lee SN; Chae SW; Park KH; Kim JW; Lee HP
Acta Cytol; 2001; 45(4):525-31. PubMed ID: 11480713
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Cytohistologic correlation rates between conventional Papanicolaou smears and ThinPrep cervical cytology: a comparison.
Chacho MS; Mattie ME; Schwartz PE
Cancer; 2003 Jun; 99(3):135-40. PubMed ID: 12811853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
