99 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8363826)
41. 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]
42. 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]
43. Negative smears in women developing invasive cervical cancer.
Rylander E
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 1977; 56(2):115-8. PubMed ID: 855653
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. The mode ages of women with cervical dysplasia.
Carson HJ; DeMay RM
Obstet Gynecol; 1993 Sep; 82(3):430-4. PubMed ID: 8355947
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Evaluation of the abnormal Pap smear.
Homesley HD
Am Fam Physician; 1977 Sep; 16(3):190-4. PubMed ID: 900003
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
46. A state-wide population-based evaluation of cervical cancers arising during opportunistic screening in the United States.
Landy R; Mathews C; Robertson M; Wiggins CL; McDonald YJ; Goldberg DW; Scarinci IC; Cuzick J; Sasieni PD; Wheeler CM
Gynecol Oncol; 2020 Nov; 159(2):344-353. PubMed ID: 32977987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Papanicolaou smear sensitivity for adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. A study of 34 cases.
Lee KR; Minter LJ; Granter SR
Am J Clin Pathol; 1997 Jan; 107(1):30-5. PubMed ID: 8980364
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Human papillomavirus DNA detection in cervical specimens by hybrid capture: correlation with cytologic and histologic diagnoses of squamous intraepithelial lesions of the cervix.
Hall S; Lörincz A; Shah F; Sherman ME; Abbas F; Paull G; Kurman RJ; Shah KV
Gynecol Oncol; 1996 Sep; 62(3):353-9. PubMed ID: 8812532
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. The influence of sample takers on the cellular composition of cervical smears.
Vooijs GP; Elias A; van der Graaf Y; Poelen-van de Berg M
Acta Cytol; 1986; 30(3):251-7. PubMed ID: 3459325
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. False negative rate in mass screening for cervical cancer.
Sato S; Mikino H; Matsunaga G; Yajima A
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(3):836-7. PubMed ID: 9622728
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
51. Clinical Significance of a cervical cytologic diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Favoring a reactive process or low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion.
Gonzalez D; Hernandez E; Anderson L; Heller P; Atkinson BF
J Reprod Med; 1996 Oct; 41(10):719-23. PubMed ID: 9026557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: a comparative review of original and automated rescreen diagnosis of cervicovaginal smears with long term follow-up.
Stastny JF; Remmers RE; London WB; Pedigo MA; Cahill LA; Ryan M; Frable WJ
Cancer; 1997 Dec; 81(6):348-53. PubMed ID: 9438460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Appropriate follow-up interval for biopsy confirmation of squamous intraepithelial lesions diagnosed by cervical smear cytology.
Renshaw AA; Granter SR
Am J Clin Pathol; 1997 Sep; 108(3):275-9. PubMed ID: 9291454
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. False negative rate in cervical cytology.
van der Graaf Y; Vooijs GP
J Clin Pathol; 1987 Apr; 40(4):438-42. PubMed ID: 3584488
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Recent negative cytology prior to histologically confirmed carcinoma in situ of the cervix.
Mitchell H; Higgins V
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 1994 May; 34(2):178-81. PubMed ID: 7980308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Screening-preventable cervical cancer risks: evidence from a nationwide audit in Sweden.
Andrae B; Kemetli L; Sparén P; Silfverdal L; Strander B; Ryd W; Dillner J; Törnberg S
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2008 May; 100(9):622-9. PubMed ID: 18445828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Screening errors in cervical cytologic screening.
van der Graaf Y; Vooijs GP; Gaillard HL; Go DM
Acta Cytol; 1987; 31(4):434-8. PubMed ID: 3604538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. [Cytological diagnosis of cancer of the uterine cervix. Results during 1971].
Gerber E; Vajda D
Rev Med Suisse Romande; 1972 Oct; 92(10):813-28. PubMed ID: 4660894
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
59. Early histological diagnosis of cervical cancer.
Burghardt E
Major Probl Obstet Gynecol; 1973; 6():1-401. PubMed ID: 4594637
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
60. The cytological screening history of 469 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix uteri; does interval carcinoma exist?
Kenter GG; Schoonderwald EM; Koelma IA; Arentz N; Hermans J; Fleuren GJ
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 1996 Apr; 75(4):400-3. PubMed ID: 8638464
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
