100 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8604576)
21. Multicenter comparison of manual and automated screening of AutoCyte gynecologic preparations.
Bishop JW; Kaufman RH; Taylor DA
Acta Cytol; 1999; 43(1):34-8. PubMed ID: 9987448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Advances in cervical screening technology.
Stoler MH
Mod Pathol; 2000 Mar; 13(3):275-84. PubMed ID: 10757338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. [Cervical smears unsuitable for exclusion of cervical carcinoma].
Giard RW; Blok P
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2000 Jan; 144(2):86-7. PubMed ID: 10674109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. PAPNET Testing System. Technical update.
Denaro TJ; Herriman JM; Shapira O
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):65-73. PubMed ID: 9022728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Oncometrics Imaging Corporation and Xillix Technologies Corporation. Use of the Cyto-Savant in quantitative cytology.
Palcic B; Garner DM; MacAulay CE; Matisic J; Anderson GH
Acta Cytol; 1996; 40(1):67-72. PubMed ID: 8604577
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. The false negative smear: an instrumental error?
Rubio CA
Acta Cytol; 1977; 21(4):500-1. PubMed ID: 269598
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Determining the utility and effectiveness of the NeoPath AutoPap 300 QC System used routinely.
Fetterman B; Pawlick G; Koo H; Hartinger J; Gilbert C; Connell S
Acta Cytol; 1999; 43(1):13-22. PubMed ID: 9987444
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Too early to solve Pap device puzzle.
Check W
CAP Today; 1997 Jun; 11(6):1, 44-6, 48-9 passim. PubMed ID: 10174227
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Image cytometry in automated cervical screening.
van Driel-Kulker AM; Ploem-Zaaijer JJ
Anal Cell Pathol; 1989 Feb; 1(1):63-77. PubMed ID: 2488701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 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]
31. Rescreening of cervical Papanicolaou smears using PAPNET.
Koss LG
JAMA; 1998 Jun; 279(22):1786; author reply 1787-8. PubMed ID: 9628706
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
32. Industrial developments in automated cytology as submitted by their developers.
Wied GL
Anal Quant Cytol Histol; 1993 Oct; 15(5):358-70. PubMed ID: 8259977
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Can we change the way we screen?: the ThinPrep Imaging System.
Dawson AE
Cancer; 2004 Dec; 102(6):340-4. PubMed ID: 15540250
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. [How technology and vaccination have changed the Pap test].
Bondi A; Ghidoni D; Amadori A
Pathologica; 1999 Feb; 91(1):36-41. PubMed ID: 10396949
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. AccuMed International, Inc. Meeting the challenges in cervical cancer screening: the AcCell Series 2000 automated slide handling and data management system.
Grohs DH; Gombrich PP; Domanik RA
Acta Cytol; 1996; 40(1):26-30. PubMed ID: 8604570
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of automated and semi-automated cervical screening devices: a systematic review of the literature.
Broadstock M
N Z Med J; 2001 Jul; 114(1135):311-3. PubMed ID: 11556445
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. [Screening of cervical cancer, false negative smears].
Vassilakos P; de Marval F; Muñoz M
Rev Med Suisse Romande; 1998 Jan; 118(1):97. PubMed ID: 9580199
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Challenges in cervical cancer screening: what clinicians, patients and the general public need to know.
Grohs DH
Acta Cytol; 1996; 40(1):133-7. PubMed ID: 8604566
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Assessing the costs and benefits of alternative rescreening strategies.
Hutchinson ML
Acta Cytol; 1996; 40(1):4-8. PubMed ID: 8604573
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. [Screening of cervical cancer, false negative vaginal smears].
Weintraub D
Rev Med Suisse Romande; 1997 Nov; 117(11):921. PubMed ID: 9471658
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
