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 *

114 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9302930)

  • 21. Malignant cell detection and cervical cancer screening.
    Bacus JW; Wiley EL; Galbraith W; Marshall PN; Wilbanks GD; Weinstein RS
    Anal Quant Cytol; 1984 Jun; 6(2):121-30. PubMed ID: 6465697
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Rapid prescreening of Papanicolaou smears: a practical and efficient quality control strategy.
    Renshaw A
    Cancer; 2006 Aug; 108(4):267; author reply 268. PubMed ID: 16671112
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Quality control in cytologic screening.
    Cecchini S; Grazzini G; Bonardi R; Ciatto S
    Acta Cytol; 1993; 37(3):436. PubMed ID: 8498145
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Receiver operating characteristic curves of symptom scores in the diagnosis of interstitial cystitis/painful bladder syndrome.
    Fenton BW; Palmieri PA; Fanning J
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2008; 15(5):601-4. PubMed ID: 18722973
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. [Cervical smears taken by physicians' assistants are of lesser quality than smears taken by family physicians, but almost as good as the national average].
    van Rijswijk A
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2000 Feb; 144(8):399. PubMed ID: 10703599
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. An analysis of the variation of human interpretation: Papnet a mini-challenge.
    Husain OA; Butler EB; Nayagam M; Mango L; Alonzo A
    Anal Cell Pathol; 1994 Feb; 6(2):157-63. PubMed ID: 8167098
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. A generalized linear model for analysing receiver operating characteristic curves.
    Smith PJ; Thompson TJ; Engelgau MM; Herman WH
    Stat Med; 1996 Feb; 15(3):323-33. PubMed ID: 8643889
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. 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]  

  • 31. Recommendations for cervical screening 1997. Members of the Working Party on Cervical Screening.
    N Z Med J; 1998 Mar; 111(1062):94-8. PubMed ID: 9577460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Sensitivity of primary screening by rapid review: 'to act or not to act on the results, that is the question'.
    Slater DN
    Cytopathology; 1998 Apr; 9(2):77-83. PubMed ID: 9577733
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Variation in the assessment of adequacy in cervical smears.
    Migliore G; Rossi E; Aldovini A; Mudu P; Alderisio M; Giovagnoli MR; Fabiano A; Morosini PL; Branca M
    Cytopathology; 2001 Dec; 12(6):377-82. PubMed ID: 11843939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. [Diagnostic performance of immunologic tests in amebic liver abscess using receiver operating characteristic curves].
    Garduño-Espinosa J; Martínez-García MC; Rendón-Macías E; Fajardo-Gutiérrez A; Hernández-Hernández DM; Muñoz-Hernández O
    Rev Invest Clin; 1992; 44(3):373-82. PubMed ID: 1488581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Evaluation of the clinical accuracy of laboratory tests.
    Zweig MH
    Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1988 Apr; 112(4):383-6. PubMed ID: 3355338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The use of relative operating characteristic (ROC) curves in test performance evaluation.
    Beck JR; Shultz EK
    Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1986 Jan; 110(1):13-20. PubMed ID: 3753562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. A principled approach to setting optimal diagnostic thresholds: where ROC and indifference curves meet.
    Irwin RJ; Irwin TC
    Eur J Intern Med; 2011 Jun; 22(3):230-4. PubMed ID: 21570638
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Meta-analysis of diagnostic tests with imperfect reference standards.
    Walter SD; Irwig L; Glasziou PP
    J Clin Epidemiol; 1999 Oct; 52(10):943-51. PubMed ID: 10513757
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Etiologies for non-correlating cervical cytologies and biopsies.
    Tritz DM; Weeks JA; Spires SE; Sattich M; Banks H; Cibull ML; Davey DD
    Am J Clin Pathol; 1995 May; 103(5):594-7. PubMed ID: 7741105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. On the use of pooled receiver operating characteristic curves in the evaluation of scintigrams.
    Gwiazdowska BA; Tolwiński J
    Nuklearmedizin; 1978 Jul; 17(3):106-9. PubMed ID: 704363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.