99 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8363826)
1. Cervical cancers in Greenlandic women diagnosed after negative results on cervical cytology: perspectives in a high-risk population.
Nielsen NH; Jensen H
APMIS; 1993 Jun; 101(6):492-6. PubMed ID: 8363826
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Review of cervical smears in a gynaecologic department after a period of ten years under the consideration of colposcopic findings(author's transl)].
Michalzik K
Arch Gynakol; 1975; 218(2):149-68. PubMed ID: 1174025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Cervical cancers diagnosed after negative results on cervical cytology: perspective in the 1980s.
Mitchell H; Medley G; Giles G
BMJ; 1990 Jun; 300(6740):1622-6. PubMed ID: 2372641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Cancer diagnosis after a report of negative cervical cytology.
Mitchell HS; Giles GG
Med J Aust; 1996 Mar; 164(5):270-3. PubMed ID: 8628160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Screening for cancer of the uterine cervix in Greenland.
Nielsen NH; Jensen H
APMIS; 1993 Apr; 101(4):290-4. PubMed ID: 8323738
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Review of negative and low-grade cervical smears in women with invasive cervical cancer after the first 3 years of the national cervical screening programme in Slovenia.
Repše-Fokter A; Pogačnik A; Snoj V; Primic-Žakelj M; Fležar MS
Cytopathology; 2012 Feb; 23(1):23-9. PubMed ID: 20964743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluation of smears obtained by cervical scraping and an endocervical swab in the diagnosis of neoplastic disease of the uterine cervix.
Johansen P; Arffmann E; Pallesen G
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 1979; 58(3):265-70. PubMed ID: 484218
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Cervical cytology histories of 100 women with invasive carcinoma of the cervix.
Holman CD; McCartney AJ; Hyde KL; Armstrong BK
Med J Aust; 1981 Nov; 2(11):597-8. PubMed ID: 7334976
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Significant reduction in the rate of false-negative cervical smears with neural network-based technology (PAPNET Testing System).
Koss LG; Sherman ME; Cohen MB; Anes AR; Darragh TM; Lemos LB; McClellan BJ; Rosenthal DL; Keyhani-Rofagha S; Schreiber K; Valente PT
Hum Pathol; 1997 Oct; 28(10):1196-203. PubMed ID: 9343327
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Analysis of cervical smears obtained within three years of the diagnosis of invasive cervical cancer.
Kristensen GB; Skyggebjerg KD; Hølund B; Holm K; Hansen MK
Acta Cytol; 1991; 35(1):47-50. PubMed ID: 1994634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. The increasing problem in Tayside of cervical cancer in younger women.
Dodgson J; Walker EM; Hussein KA; Robertson AJ; Duncan ID
Scott Med J; 1989 Feb; 34(1):403-5. PubMed ID: 2785288
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Dysplasia and carcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix: prevalence in very young women (under age 22). A one-year study in a health plan population.
Snyder RN; Ortiz Y; Willie S; Cove JK
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1976 Apr; 124(7):751-6. PubMed ID: 1258935
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Follow-up of women with cervical cytological abnormalities showing atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion: a nationwide cohort study.
Sundström K; Lu D; Elfström KM; Wang J; Andrae B; Dillner J; Sparén P
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Jan; 216(1):48.e1-48.e15. PubMed ID: 27457115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Experience with 40,000 Papanicolaou smears.
Sandmire HF; Austin SD; Bechtel RC
Obstet Gynecol; 1976 Jul; 48(1):56-60. PubMed ID: 934574
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Effectiveness of cervical screening after age 60 years according to screening history: Nationwide cohort study in Sweden.
Wang J; Andrae B; Sundström K; Ploner A; Ström P; Elfström KM; Dillner J; Sparén P
PLoS Med; 2017 Oct; 14(10):e1002414. PubMed ID: 29065127
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Cervical Abnormalities Are More Common among Indigenous than Other Australian Women: A Retrospective Record-Linkage Study, 2000-2011.
Whop LJ; Baade P; Garvey G; Cunningham J; Brotherton JM; Lokuge K; Valery PC; O'Connell DL; Canfell K; Diaz A; Roder D; Gertig DM; Moore SP; Condon JR
PLoS One; 2016; 11(4):e0150473. PubMed ID: 27064273
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A retrospective review of cervical cytology in women developing invasive squamous cell carcinoma.
Walker EM; Hare MJ; Cooper P
Br J Obstet Gynaecol; 1983 Nov; 90(11):1087-91. PubMed ID: 6639901
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Screening frequency and histologic type influence the efficacy of cervical cancer screening: A nationwide cohort study.
Chiang YC; Chen YY; Hsieh SF; Chiang CJ; You SL; Cheng WF; Lai MS; Chen CA;
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Aug; 56(4):442-448. PubMed ID: 28805598
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
