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 *

50 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9068963)

  • 1. Inter- and intra-observer variation in the reporting of cervical smears.
    Smith JH
    Cytopathology; 1997 Feb; 8(1):68-9. PubMed ID: 9068963
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Inter- and intra-observer variation in the reporting of cervical smears: specialist cytopathologists versus histopathologists.
    O'Sullivan JP; Ismail SM; Barnes WS; Deery AR; Gradwell E; Harvey JA; Husain OA; Kocjan G; McKee G; Olafsdottir R; Ratcliffe NA; Newcombe RG
    Cytopathology; 1996 Apr; 7(2):78-89. PubMed ID: 9074657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The Yorkshire slide exchange EQA scheme.
    Mansour P; Walsh D; Immins E; Dutton J
    Cytopathology; 1997 Feb; 8(1):65-7. PubMed ID: 9068960
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Telecytology: intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of cervical-vaginal smears.
    Alli PM; Ollayos CW; Thompson LD; Kapadia I; Butler DR; Williams BH; Rosenthal DL; O'leary TJ
    Hum Pathol; 2001 Dec; 32(12):1318-22. PubMed ID: 11774163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Variability in diagnosis of clue cells, lactobacillary grading and white blood cells in vaginal wet smears with conventional bright light and phase contrast microscopy.
    Donders GG; Larsson PG; Platz-Christensen JJ; Hallén A; van der Meijden W; Wölner-Hanssen P
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2009 Jul; 145(1):109-12. PubMed ID: 19481329
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Interobserver agreement in the diagnosis of cervical smears.
    Kashyap V; Murthy NS; Bhatnagar P; Sharma S; Das DK
    Indian J Pathol Microbiol; 1995 Oct; 38(4):375-82. PubMed ID: 9726147
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Influence of specimen adequacy on the diagnosis of ASCUS.
    Sebastião AP; Noronha Ld; Pinheiro DL; Collaço LM; de Carvalho NS; Bleggi-Torres LF
    Diagn Cytopathol; 2004 Sep; 31(3):155-8. PubMed ID: 15349983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Midwives' visual interpretation of intrapartum cardiotocographs: intra- and inter-observer agreement.
    Devane D; Lalor J
    J Adv Nurs; 2005 Oct; 52(2):133-41. PubMed ID: 16164474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Public expectations, achievable cervical screening sensitivity, and the standard of practice.
    Austin RM
    Cancer; 2003 Feb; 99(1):1-3. PubMed ID: 12589638
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The FocalPoint System: FocalPoint slide profiler and FocalPoint GS.
    Kardos TF
    Cancer; 2004 Dec; 102(6):334-9. PubMed ID: 15549692
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Low grade and ASCUS lesions of the cervix: diagnostic difficulties and reproducibility.
    Raab SS
    Ann Pathol; 1999; 19(5 Suppl):S87-9. PubMed ID: 10599462
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Telecytology using preselected fields of view: the future of cytodiagnosis or a dead end?
    Mairinger T; Gschwendtner A
    Am J Clin Pathol; 1997 May; 107(5):620-1. PubMed ID: 9128278
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Increasing the clinical utility of the cervical smear cytology report--a cytopathologist's recommendations.
    Malami SA; Adegbola TA; Mayun AA
    Niger J Med; 2003; 12(1):58-63. PubMed ID: 12956010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Interobserver reproducibility: a new approach to quality control by using digital images (D.I. Test).
    Cariaggi MP; Confortini M; Mirri F; Tinacci G
    Acta Cytol; 2001; 45(3):488-90. PubMed ID: 11393094
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. [An operative model: verification of the quality of the screening Pap test ].
    Montanari GR; Arnaud S; Berardengo E; Campione D; Cozzani C; Parisio F; Viberti L; Ghiringhello B
    Pathologica; 2001 Oct; 93(5):609-10. PubMed ID: 11725370
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Liquid-based cytology and conventional smears compared over two 12-month periods.
    Williams AR
    Cytopathology; 2006 Apr; 17(2):82-5. PubMed ID: 16548992
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [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]  

  • 18. Interobserver agreement in the interpretation of chromogenic in situ hybridization for detection of human papillomavirus in gynecologic cytology: an appraisal of 55 cases.
    Kouria G; Venkataraman G; Mehrotra S; Wojcik EM; Sinacore J
    Acta Cytol; 2007; 51(3):494-6. PubMed ID: 17536567
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Microglandular hyperplasia of the uterine cervix: cytologic diagnosis in cervical smears.
    Selvaggi SM
    Acta Cytol; 2000; 44(3):480-1. PubMed ID: 10834016
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Utility of microwave processed cell blocks as a complement to cervico-vaginal smears.
    Gangane N; Mukerji MS; ; Sharma SM
    Diagn Cytopathol; 2007 Jun; 35(6):338-41. PubMed ID: 17497657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 3.