These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
182 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8785367)
21. Reinvestigation of crucial cases where first diagnosis by mailing smear test disagrees with second diagnosis by cytology and/or biopsy. Noda S; Terakawa N; Abe Y Acta Obstet Gynaecol Jpn; 1976 Jul; 23(3):173-8. PubMed ID: 1026045 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. A model for quality assessment in cervical cytology used as a screening test. Quantin C; Dusserre L; Montaud AM; Mottot C; Feldman JP Qual Assur Health Care; 1992 Jun; 4(2):105-13. PubMed ID: 1511144 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. [Cytological classifications of vaginal smears. Current concepts of complex cytodiagnosis]. Kasabova M Akush Ginekol (Sofiia); 1984; 23(4):357-64. PubMed ID: 6385754 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. An audit of the positive predictive value of high-grade dyskaryosis in cervical smears: 2001-2002. Wadehra V; Johnson SJ Cytopathology; 2003 Jun; 14(3):107-14. PubMed ID: 12828718 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. European guidelines on cervical screening. Smith JH; Desai MS Cytopathology; 2007 Aug; 18(4):211-2. PubMed ID: 17635160 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. The Bethesda System, the pathology of preinvasive lesions, and screening technology. The Bethesda System (TBS) of nomenclature for cervical smears. Henry M J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 1996; (21):13-6. PubMed ID: 9101702 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. ["Papanicolaou." Outmoded, isn't it?]. de León-Antoni E Bol Asoc Med P R; 1991 Oct; 83(10):462-4. PubMed ID: 1789893 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. Secondary prevention of cervical cancer part 1: screening for cervical cancer and its precursors. Boisen M; Diedrich JT; Lonky NM; Guido R Clin Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Jun; 57(2):279-91. PubMed ID: 24785416 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Outcome after a pap smear report of low-grade abnormality: a longitudinal comparative study. Zardawi IM Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2000 Nov; 40(4):478-9. PubMed ID: 11194448 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. The correlation of colposcopy and densitometry in the management of the abnormal smear. Andrew JD; Levene MM Obstet Gynecol Surv; 1979 Nov; 34(11):875-7. PubMed ID: 523050 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Inadequate cervical smear: what do we do? Phadnis SV; Doshi JS; Ogunnaike OO; Padwick ML; Sanusi FA Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2005 May; 84(5):486-8. PubMed ID: 15842215 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Who should decide how effective cervical cancer screening will be? Austin RM Acta Cytol; 1999; 43(1):4-6. PubMed ID: 9987442 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. A quality control system involving peer review of abnormal cervical smears. Palli D; Confortini M; Biggeri A; Russo A; Cariaggi P; Carozzi F; Minuti PA Cytopathology; 1993; 4(1):17-25. PubMed ID: 8453014 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]