140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8621186)
1. Automated screening of cervical cytology specimens.
Birdsong GG
Hum Pathol; 1996 May; 27(5):468-81. PubMed ID: 8621186
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Effect of the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (CLIA '88) on the incidence of invasive cervical cancer.
Helfand M; O'Connor GT; Zimmer-Gembeck M; Beck JR
Med Care; 1992 Dec; 30(12):1067-82. PubMed ID: 1453813
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Medicolegal affairs. International Academy of Cytology Task Force summary. Diagnostic Cytology Towards the 21st Century: An International Expert Conference and Tutorial.
Frable WJ; Austin RM; Greening SE; Collins RJ; Hillman RL; Kobler TP; Koss LG; Mitchell H; Perey R; Rosenthal DL; Sidoti MS; Somrak TM
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):76-119; discussion 120-32. PubMed ID: 9479326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Automation in cytology: a survey conducted by the New Technology Task Force, Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology.
Masood S; Cajulis RS; Cibas ES; Wilbur DC; Bedrossian CW
Diagn Cytopathol; 1998 Jan; 18(1):47-55. PubMed ID: 9451558
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Automated screening of Papanicolaou tests: A review of the literature.
Thrall MJ
Diagn Cytopathol; 2019 Jan; 47(1):20-27. PubMed ID: 29603675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Liquid-based cytology for cervical cancer screening.
Bentz JS
Expert Rev Mol Diagn; 2005 Nov; 5(6):857-71. PubMed ID: 16255628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Regulatory closure of cervical cytology laboratories: recommendations for a public health response.
MMWR Recomm Rep; 1997 Dec; 46(RR-17):1-19. PubMed ID: 9409538
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Papanicolaou smear: can we make a good test better? Technical and interpretive challenges for the practitioner.
Eltabbakh GH; Eltabbakh GD
J Womens Health Gend Based Med; 1999 May; 8(4):469-76. PubMed ID: 10839701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Rescreening in cervical cytology for quality control. When bad data is worse than no data or what works, what doesn't, and why.
Renshaw AA
Clin Lab Med; 2003 Sep; 23(3):695-708. PubMed ID: 14560535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. ThinPrep Papanicolaou testing to reduce false-negative cervical cytology.
Linder J; Zahniser D
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1998 Feb; 122(2):139-44. PubMed ID: 9499356
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Quality control and automation in cervical cytology.
Kumar N; Jain S
J Indian Med Assoc; 2004 Jul; 102(7):372, 374, 376 pasim. PubMed ID: 15717583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Efficacy of automated cervical cytology screening.
Slagel DD; Zaleski S; Cohen MB
Diagn Cytopathol; 1995 Jul; 13(1):26-30. PubMed ID: 7587871
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Single-slide Pap smear: an acceptable alternative to the double-slide Pap smear.
Quackenbush SR
Diagn Cytopathol; 1999 May; 20(5):317-20. PubMed ID: 10319236
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Automated rescreening in cervical cytology. Mathematical models for evaluating overall process sensitivity, specificity and cost.
Kaminsky FC; Benneyan JC; Mullins DL
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):209-23. PubMed ID: 9022745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparative study: conventional cervical and ThinPrep Pap tests in a routine clinical setting.
Grace A; McBrearty P; Troost S; Thornhill M; Kay E; Leader M
Cytopathology; 2002 Aug; 13(4):200-5. PubMed ID: 12269892
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. A mobile unit: an effective service for cervical cancer screening among rural Thai women.
Swaddiwudhipong W; Chaovakiratipong C; Nguntra P; Mahasakpan P; Tatip Y; Boonmak C
Int J Epidemiol; 1999 Feb; 28(1):35-9. PubMed ID: 10195661
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. PAPNET-assisted rescreening of cervical smears: cost and accuracy compared with a 100% manual rescreening strategy.
O'Leary TJ; Tellado M; Buckner SB; Ali IS; Stevens A; Ollayos CW
JAMA; 1998 Jan; 279(3):235-7. PubMed ID: 9438746
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
