366 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9041745)
1. Comparison of the cervical cytology test using the PAPNET method and conventional microscopy.
Weissbrod D; Torres M; Rodríguez A; Ureña I; Estrada J; Reyes ME; Carreto AJ
Bull Pan Am Health Organ; 1996 Dec; 30(4):339-47. PubMed ID: 9041745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Performance of a semiautomated Papanicolaou smear screening system: results of a population-based study conducted in Guanacaste, Costa Rica.
Sherman ME; Schiffman M; Herrero R; Kelly D; Bratti C; Mango LJ; Alfaro M; Hutchinson ML; Mena F; Hildesheim A; Morales J; Greenberg MD; Balmaceda I; Lorincz AT
Cancer; 1998 Oct; 84(5):273-80. PubMed ID: 9801201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Diagnostic reproducibility of Pap testing in two regions of Mexico: the need for quality control mechanisms.
de Ruíz PA; Lazcano Ponce EC; Duarte Torres R; Ruíz Juárez I; Martínez Cortez I
Bull Pan Am Health Organ; 1996 Dec; 30(4):330-8. PubMed ID: 9041744
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [The PAPNET system in the rescreening of negative cervical/vaginal smears. A study from the Imola cytology laboratory].
Ghidoni D; Fabbris E; Folicaldi S; Amadori A; Medri M; Bucchi L; Bondi A
Pathologica; 1998 Aug; 90(4):357-63. PubMed ID: 9793395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [Evaluation of PAPNET--a semiautomated system used in the screening against cervical cancer].
Hølund B; Ejersbo D; Hjortebjerg A
Ugeskr Laeger; 1998 Sep; 160(40):5802-6. PubMed ID: 9782761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Visual inspection of the uterine cervix after the application of acetic acid in the detection of cervical carcinoma and its precursors.
Sankaranarayanan R; Wesley R; Somanathan T; Dhakad N; Shyamalakumary B; Amma NS; Parkin DM; Nair MK
Cancer; 1998 Nov; 83(10):2150-6. PubMed ID: 9827719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Laboratory reliability of the Papanicolaou smear.
Yobs AR; Swanson RA; Lamotte LC
Obstet Gynecol; 1985 Feb; 65(2):235-44. PubMed ID: 3969236
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The PAPNET system for quality control of cervical smears: validation and limits.
Cenci M; Nagar C; Giovagnoli MR; Vecchione A
Anticancer Res; 1997; 17(6D):4731-4. PubMed ID: 9494597
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Analysis of the intralaboratory diagnostic variability in the Imola cervical screening program].
Fabbris E; Bucchi L; Folicaldi S; Amadori A; Ghidoni D; Medri M; Bondi A
Pathologica; 1998 Apr; 90(2):127-32. PubMed ID: 9619055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. SpinThin, a simple, inexpensive technique for preparation of thin-layer cervical cytology from liquid-based specimens: data on 791 cases.
Khalbuss WE; Rudomina D; Kauff ND; Chuang L; Melamed MR
Cancer; 2000 Jun; 90(3):135-42. PubMed ID: 10896326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Automated screening for quality control using PAPNET: a study of 638 negative Pap smears.
Keyhani-Rofagha S; Palma T; O'Toole RV
Diagn Cytopathol; 1996 Jun; 14(4):316-20. PubMed ID: 8725131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The diagnostic value of computer-assisted primary cervical smear screening: a longitudinal cohort study.
Doornewaard H; van der Schouw YT; van der Graaf Y; Bos AB; Habbema JD; van den Tweel JG
Mod Pathol; 1999 Nov; 12(11):995-1000. PubMed ID: 10574595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Morphometric analysis of dysplasia in cervical cone biopsy specimens in cases with false-negative cytology.
Hartman B; Kaplan B; Boone D
Obstet Gynecol; 1986 Dec; 68(6):832-6. PubMed ID: 3785796
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Consequences of neural network technology for cervical screening: increase in diagnostic consistency and positive scores.
Kok MR; Boon ME
Cancer; 1996 Jul; 78(1):112-7. PubMed ID: 8646706
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Review of the screening history of Alberta women with invasive cervical cancer.
Stuart GC; McGregor SE; Duggan MA; Nation JG
CMAJ; 1997 Sep; 157(5):513-9. PubMed ID: 9294389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The significance of cervical cytologic dysplasia.
Jordan SW; Smith NL; Dike LS
Acta Cytol; 1981; 25(3):237-44. PubMed ID: 6942614
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of HPV test versus conventional and automation-assisted Pap screening as potential screening tools for preventing cervical cancer.
Nieminen P; Vuorma S; Viikki M; Hakama M; Anttila A
BJOG; 2004 Aug; 111(8):842-8. PubMed ID: 15270934
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. A randomized crossover trial of PAPNET for primary cervical screening.
Irwig L; Macaskill P; Farnsworth A; Wright RG; McCool J; Barratt A; Simpson JM
J Clin Epidemiol; 2004 Jan; 57(1):75-81. PubMed ID: 15019013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Cytohistologic correlation rates between conventional Papanicolaou smears and ThinPrep cervical cytology: a comparison.
Chacho MS; Mattie ME; Schwartz PE
Cancer; 2003 Jun; 99(3):135-40. PubMed ID: 12811853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [The PAPNET system in cytological rescreening of cervical smears].
Cenci M; Nagar C; Giovagnoli MR; Vecchione A
Minerva Ginecol; 1997 Apr; 49(4):139-45. PubMed ID: 9206764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
