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.
23. Update on the Papanicolaou smear: new issues for the 1990s. Ollayos CW Mil Med; 1997 Aug; 162(8):521-3. PubMed ID: 9271901 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Screening for cervical cancer by Pap smear. Rehan N J Pak Med Assoc; 1989 Apr; 39(4):116-8. PubMed ID: 2501528 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Quality and liability issues with the Papanicolaou smear. Sirota RL Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1997 Dec; 121(12):1237-8. PubMed ID: 9431309 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. Cervical cancer screening in Canadian Native women. Adequacy of the Papanicolaou smear. Hislop TG; Band PR; Deschamps M; Clarke HF; Smith JM; Ng VT Acta Cytol; 1994; 38(1):29-32. PubMed ID: 8291352 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. The history of the Papanicolaou smear and the odyssey of George and Andromache Papanicolaou. Vilos GA Obstet Gynecol; 1998 Mar; 91(3):479-83. PubMed ID: 9491881 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. The Papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection. A triumph and a tragedy. Koss LG JAMA; 1989 Feb; 261(5):737-43. PubMed ID: 2642983 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Death of the Papanicolaou smear? A tale of three reasons. Boronow RC Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1998 Aug; 179(2):391-6. PubMed ID: 9731843 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. 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]
32. Carcinoma of the uterine cervix and utilization of the Papanicolaou smear technique. Lee RE Proc Inst Med Chic; 1979; 32(7):142-4, 153. PubMed ID: 392500 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
34. Does cost-effectiveness analysis make a difference? Lessons from Pap smears. Symposium. Hagen MD; Garber AM; Goldie SJ; Lafata JE; Mandelblatt J; Meltzer D; Neumann P; Siegel JE; Sox HC; Tsevat J Med Decis Making; 2001; 21(4):307-23. PubMed ID: 11475387 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. [On the occasion of the 65th birthday of the cervical smear: added value of population studies for cervical cancer remains unclear]. Giard RW Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2007 Jun; 151(23):1268-71. PubMed ID: 17624154 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. New technology in Papanicolaou smear processing. Dunton CJ Clin Obstet Gynecol; 2000 Jun; 43(2):410-7. PubMed ID: 10863637 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. The Papanicolaou test and screening for cervical cancer. Vasilev SA; Scott RS JAMA; 1997 Aug; 278(8):634. PubMed ID: 9272890 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Gynecological care of elderly women. Another look at Papanicolaou smear testing. Mandelblatt J; Gopaul I; Wistreich M JAMA; 1986 Jul; 256(3):367-71. PubMed ID: 3723723 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Automated rescreening of Papanicolaou smears: what are the implications? Birdsong GG Diagn Cytopathol; 1995 Nov; 13(4):283-6. PubMed ID: 8599909 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]