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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

225 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8913977)

  • 21. Endocervical detection of CIN. Cytobrush versus cotton.
    Schettino F; Sideri M; Cangini L; Candiani M; Zannoni E; Maggi R; Ferrari A
    Eur J Gynaecol Oncol; 1993; 14(3):234-6. PubMed ID: 8508881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. [Comparison of the methods of cytobrush and Ayre spatula in the concentration of endocervical cells].
    Longatto Filho A; Maeda MY; Santos DR; de Andréa Filho A; Cavaliere MJ; Shih LW; Oyafuso MS
    Rev Paul Med; 1991; 109(3):93-6. PubMed ID: 1947611
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Cervical cytology: a randomized comparison of four sampling methods.
    McCord ML; Stovall TG; Meric JL; Summitt RL; Coleman SA
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1992 Jun; 166(6 Pt 1):1772-7; discussion 1777-9. PubMed ID: 1615986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Improving the yield of endocervical elements in a Pap smear with the use of the cytology brush.
    Ruffin MT; Van Noord GR
    Fam Med; 1991 Jul; 23(5):365-9. PubMed ID: 1884932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Cervical cytology after cryosurgery, laser ablation and conization. A comparison of the cotton swab and endocervical brush.
    Partoll LM; Javaheri G
    Acta Cytol; 1993; 37(6):876-8. PubMed ID: 8249505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. A randomized comparison of the 3 Papanicolaou smear collection methods.
    Kavak ZN; Eren F; Pekin S; Küllü S
    Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 1995 Nov; 35(4):446-9. PubMed ID: 8717577
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Analysis of five sampling methods for the preparation of cervical smears.
    Boon ME; de Graaff Guilloud JC; Rietveld WJ
    Acta Cytol; 1989; 33(6):843-8. PubMed ID: 2588917
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. In search of more representative cervical cytology. A preliminary prospective study.
    Brink AL; du Toit JP; Deale CJ
    S Afr Med J; 1989 Jul; 76(2):55-7. PubMed ID: 2749424
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Cervex-Brush and Cytobrush. Comparison of their ability to sample abnormal cells for cervical smears.
    Hutchinson M; Fertitta L; Goldbaum B; Hamza M; Vanerian S; Isenstein L
    J Reprod Med; 1991 Aug; 36(8):581-6. PubMed ID: 1941800
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The efficiency of the Cytobrush versus the cotton swab in the collection of endocervical cells in cervical smears.
    Trimbos JB; Arentz NP
    Acta Cytol; 1986; 30(3):261-3. PubMed ID: 3521175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Clinical follow-up of cervical sampling with the Ayre spatula and Zelsmyr cytobrush.
    Crouse BJ; Elliott BA; Nesin N
    Arch Fam Med; 1993 Feb; 2(2):145-8. PubMed ID: 8275183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Cervical cytology with the Papette sampler.
    Ferenczy A; Robitaille J; Guralnick M; Shatz R
    J Reprod Med; 1994 Apr; 39(4):304-10. PubMed ID: 8040849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Use of the Cytobrush for cervical sampling after cryotherapy.
    Hoffman MS; Gordy LW; Cavanagh D
    Acta Cytol; 1991; 35(1):79-80. PubMed ID: 1994640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Comparison of Cytobrush sampling, spatula sampling and combined Cytobrush-spatula sampling of the uterine cervix.
    Buntinx F; Boon ME; Beck S; Knottnerus JA; Essed GG
    Acta Cytol; 1991; 35(1):64-8. PubMed ID: 1994637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Collection devices for cervicovaginal cytology: a comparison.
    Dighe S; Ajit D
    Acta Cytol; 2005; 49(4):416-20. PubMed ID: 16124171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. [Cytological screening--the technique of cytological specimen taking and its influence on the quality of the method].
    Ivanov S
    Akush Ginekol (Sofiia); 2007; 46(8):26-7. PubMed ID: 18642552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Cell surplus on sampling devices after routine cervical cytologic smears. A study of residual cell populations.
    Goodman A; Hutchinson ML
    J Reprod Med; 1996 Apr; 41(4):239-41. PubMed ID: 8728075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. A comparison of the three most common Papanicolaou smear collection techniques.
    Germain M; Heaton R; Erickson D; Henry M; Nash J; O'Connor D
    Obstet Gynecol; 1994 Aug; 84(2):168-73. PubMed ID: 8041524
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Diagnostic accuracy of squamous cervical lesions studied in spatula-cytobrush smears.
    Alons-van Kordelaar JJ; Boon ME
    Acta Cytol; 1988; 32(6):801-4. PubMed ID: 3059733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. [Comparison of the ThinPrep monolayer technique and conventional cervical Pap smears in a high-risk population using the Munich II nomenclature].
    Lellé RJ; Cordes A; Regidor M; Maier E; Flenker H
    Gynakol Geburtshilfliche Rundsch; 2007; 47(2):81-7. PubMed ID: 17440269
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.