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.
173 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9022745)
21. Rescreening policies in cervical cytology and their effect on detecting the truly positive patient. Kaminsky FC; Burke RJ; Haberle KR; Mullins DL Acta Cytol; 1995; 39(2):239-45. PubMed ID: 7887071 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. An evaluation of 'rapid review' as a method of quality control of cervical smears using the AxioHOME microscope. Baker RW; Wadsworth J; Brugal G; Coleman DV Cytopathology; 1997 Apr; 8(2):85-95. PubMed ID: 9134333 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Understanding the financial impact of covering new screening technologies. The case of automated Pap smears. McQuarrie HG; Ogden J; Costa M J Reprod Med; 2000 Nov; 45(11):898-906. PubMed ID: 11127101 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. The primary screening clinical trials of the TriPath AutoPap System. Wilbur DC; Norton MK Epidemiology; 2002 May; 13 Suppl 3():S30-3. PubMed ID: 12071481 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Using the Pathfinder system to reduce missed abnormal cervical cytologic smear cases in a rescreening program. Berger BM Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):173-81. PubMed ID: 9022741 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Quality control of cervical cytology in high-risk women. PAPNET system compared with manual rescreening. Bergeron C; Masseroli M; Ghezi A; Lemarie A; Mango L; Koss LG Acta Cytol; 2000; 44(2):151-7. PubMed ID: 10740599 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Automation of the Papanicolaou smear: a technology assessment perspective. Linder J Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1997 Mar; 121(3):282-6. PubMed ID: 9111119 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Cost analysis of PAPNET-assisted vs. conventional Pap smear evaluation in primary screening of cervical smears. Meerding WJ; Doornewaard H; van Ballegooijen M; Bos A; van der Graaf Y; van den Tweel JG; van der Schouw YT; Habbema JD Acta Cytol; 2001; 45(1):28-35. PubMed ID: 11213501 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. [Partial re-screening of all negative smears. A method of quality control of pathology department concerning smear screening against cervix cancer]. Jensen ML; Dybdahl H; Svanholm H Ugeskr Laeger; 2000 May; 162(21):3024-7. PubMed ID: 10850190 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Computer-assisted rescreening of clinically important false negative cervical smears using the PAPNET Testing System. Rosenthal DL; Acosta D; Peters RK Acta Cytol; 1996; 40(1):120-6. PubMed ID: 8604564 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Detection of unsuspected abnormalities by PAPNET-assisted review. Mitchell H; Medley G Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):260-4. PubMed ID: 9479349 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Evaluation of 100% rapid rescreening of negative cervical smears as a quality assurance measure. Manrique EJ; Amaral RG; Souza NL; Tavares SB; Albuquerque ZB; Zeferino LC Cytopathology; 2006 Jun; 17(3):116-20. PubMed ID: 16719853 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Proposed guidelines for secondary screening (rescreening) instruments for gynecologic cytology. Intersociety Working Group for Cytology Technologies. Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):273-6. PubMed ID: 9479352 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Impact of automated technology on the cervical cytologic smear. A comparison of cost. Grohs DH Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):165-70. PubMed ID: 9479335 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Evaluation of automated systems for the analysis of cervical smears. Coleman DV Cytopathology; 1998 Dec; 9(6):359-68. PubMed ID: 9861528 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. AutoPap 300 QC system scoring of cervical smears without "epithelial cell abnormalities". Colgan TJ; Bon N; Lee JS; Patten SF Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):45-9. PubMed ID: 9022725 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]