205 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9479345)
21. The AutoPap 300 QC System multicenter clinical trials for use in quality control rescreening of cervical smears: I. A prospective intended use study.
Patten SF; Lee JS; Wilbur DC; Bonfiglio TA; Colgan TJ; Richart RM; Cramer H; Moinuddin S
Cancer; 1997 Dec; 81(6):337-42. PubMed ID: 9438458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Detection of laboratory false negative smears by the PAPNET cytologic screening system.
Mitchell H; Medley G
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):265-70. PubMed ID: 9479350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. Costs and outcomes of PAPNET secondary screening technology for cervical cytologic evaluation. A community hospital's experience.
Brotzman GL; Kretzchmar S; Ferguson D; Gottlieb M; Stowe C
Arch Fam Med; 1999; 8(1):52-5. PubMed ID: 9932072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Rescreening in gynecologic cytology. Rescreening of 8096 previous cases for current low-grade and indeterminate-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion diagnoses--a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 323 laboratories.
Jones BA
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1996 Jun; 120(6):519-22. PubMed ID: 8651851
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. False negative rate of cervical cytologic smear screening as determined by rapid rescreening.
Renshaw AA; Bellerose B; DiNisco SA; Minter LJ; Lee KR
Acta Cytol; 1999; 43(3):344-50. PubMed ID: 10349360
[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. A Multi-Institutional Feasibility Study on the Use of Automated Screening Systems for Quality Control Rescreening of Cervical Cytology.
Sugiyama Y; Sasaki H; Komatsu K; Yabushita R; Oda M; Yanoh K; Ueda M; Itamochi H; Okugawa K; Fujita H; Tase T; Nakatani E; Moriya T
Acta Cytol; 2016; 60(5):451-457. PubMed ID: 27673689
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Clinical validation of interactive cytologic screening. Automating the search, not the interpretation.
Mango LJ
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):93-7. PubMed ID: 9022733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Observer variation in cytologic grading for cervical dysplasia of Papanicolaou smears with the PAPNET testing system.
Doornewaard H; van der Schouw YT; van der Graaf Y; Bos AB; van den Tweel JG
Cancer; 1999 Aug; 87(4):178-83. PubMed ID: 10455204
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. The effects of different sampling techniques on smear quality and the diagnosis of cytological abnormalities in cervical screening.
Williamson SL; Hair T; Wadehra V
Cytopathology; 1997 Jun; 8(3):188-95. PubMed ID: 9202894
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Partial rescreening of all negative smears: an improved method of quality assurance in laboratories undertaking cervical screening.
Faraker CA
Cytopathology; 1993; 4(1):47-50. PubMed ID: 8453016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. PAPNET-directed rescreening of cervicovaginal smears: a study of 101 cases of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance.
Ryan MR; Stastny JF; Remmers R; Pedigo MA; Cahill LA; Frable WJ
Am J Clin Pathol; 1996 Jun; 105(6):711-8. PubMed ID: 8659445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. [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]
35. [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]
36. Evaluation of the PAPNET system in a general pathology service.
Farnsworth A; Chambers FM; Goldschmidt CS
Med J Aust; 1996 Oct; 165(8):429-31. PubMed ID: 8913244
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. The ThinPrep Pap test. A review of clinical studies.
Linder J; Zahniser D
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):30-8. PubMed ID: 9022723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Simulation of primary cervical cancer screening by the PAPNET system in an unscreened, high-risk community.
Michelow PM; Hlongwane NF; Leiman G
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):88-92. PubMed ID: 9022732
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Results of AutoPap system-assisted and manual cytologic screening. A comparison.
Wertlake P
J Reprod Med; 1999 Jan; 44(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 9987733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. PAPNET Testing System. Technical update.
Denaro TJ; Herriman JM; Shapira O
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):65-73. PubMed ID: 9022728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
