79 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8279450)
1. Review of negative Papanicolaou tests. Is the retrospective 5-year review necessary?
Allen KA; Zaleski S; Cohen MB
Am J Clin Pathol; 1994 Jan; 101(1):19-21. PubMed ID: 8279450
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Quality assessment and improvement of "Unsatisfactory" liquid-based cervicovaginal papanicolaou smears.
Mirzamani N; Chau K; Rafael O; Shergill U; Sajjan S; Sumskaya I; Gimenez C; Klein M; Das K
Diagn Cytopathol; 2017 Oct; 45(10):873-877. PubMed ID: 28752611
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and invasive carcinoma following the report of three negative Papanicolaou smears: screening failures or rapid progression?
Sherman ME; Kelly D
Mod Pathol; 1992 May; 5(3):337-42. PubMed ID: 1495939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of the PAPNET cytologic screening system for quality control of cervical smears.
Koss LG; Lin E; Schreiber K; Elgert P; Mango L
Am J Clin Pathol; 1994 Feb; 101(2):220-9. PubMed ID: 8116579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Reducing or eliminating use of the category of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance decreases the diagnostic accuracy of the Papanicolaou smear.
Pitman MB; Cibas ES; Powers CN; Renshaw AA; Frable WJ
Cancer; 2002 Jun; 96(3):128-34. PubMed ID: 12115299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A more accurate measure of the false-negative rate of Papanicolaou smear screening is obtained by determining the false-negative rate of the rescreening process.
Renshaw AA; DiNisco SA; Minter LJ; Cibas ES
Cancer; 1997 Oct; 81(5):272-6. PubMed ID: 9349513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance in postmenopausal women.
Chhieng DC; Elgert P; Cohen JM; Cangiarella JF
Cancer; 2001 Feb; 93(1):1-7. PubMed ID: 11241259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Update on the Papanicolaou smear: new issues for the 1990s.
Ollayos CW
Mil Med; 1997 Aug; 162(8):521-3. PubMed ID: 9271901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Pap smears with glandular cell abnormalities: Are they detected by rapid prescreening?
Kanber Y; Charbonneau M; Auger M
Cancer Cytopathol; 2015 Dec; 123(12):739-44. PubMed ID: 26348845
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Rapid prescreening of Papanicolaou smears: a practical and efficient quality control strategy.
Djemli A; Khetani K; Auger M
Cancer; 2006 Feb; 108(1):21-6. PubMed ID: 16302251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Interobserver variability of a Papanicolaou smear diagnosis of atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance.
Raab SS; Geisinger KR; Silverman JF; Thomas PA; Stanley MW
Am J Clin Pathol; 1998 Nov; 110(5):653-9. PubMed ID: 9802352
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A Study of Pap Smears in HIV-Positive and HIV-Negative Women from a Tertiary Care Center in South India.
Gupta K; Philipose CS; Rai S; Ramapuram J; Kaur G; Kini H; Gv C; Adiga D
Acta Cytol; 2019; 63(1):50-55. PubMed ID: 30721904
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Review of negative Papanicolaou tests: is the retrospective 5-year review necessary.
Rubio CA
Am J Clin Pathol; 1994 Aug; 102(2):266. PubMed ID: 8042598
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Computer-assisted rescreening of clinically important false negative cervical smears using the PAPNET Testing System.
Rosenthal DL; Acosta D; Peters RK
Acta Cytol; 1996; 40(1):120-6. PubMed ID: 8604564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A practical problem with calculating the false-negative rate of Papanicolaou smear interpretation by rescreening negative cases alone.
Renshaw AA
Cancer; 1999 Dec; 87(6):351-3. PubMed ID: 10603188
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Quality assurance in cervical smears: 100% rapid rescreening vs. 10% random rescreening.
Amaral RG; Zeferino LC; Hardy E; Westin MC; Martinez EZ; Montemor EB
Acta Cytol; 2005; 49(3):244-8. PubMed ID: 15966284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Weekly rescreening of 10% of the total cervical Papanicolaou smears: a worthwhile quality assurance scheme.
Sampatanukul P; Wannakrairot P; Promprakob U; Yodavudh S; Anansiriprapa C
J Med Assoc Thai; 2004 Sep; 87 Suppl 2():S261-5. PubMed ID: 16083199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Rapid rescreen: a viable alternative to 1:10?
Dudding N
Diagn Cytopathol; 2001 Mar; 24(3):219-21. PubMed ID: 11241909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
