101 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9523146)
1. Evaluation of the CytoRich technique for cervical smears.
Stevens MW; Nespolon WW; Milne AJ; Rowland R
Diagn Cytopathol; 1998 Mar; 18(3):236-42. PubMed ID: 9523146
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Application of the CytoRich monolayer preparation system for cervical cytology. A prelude to automated primary screening.
Takahashi M; Naito M
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(6):1785-9. PubMed ID: 9390142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Endocervical detection of CIN. Cytobrush versus cotton.
Schettino F; Sideri M; Cangini L; Candiani M; Zannoni E; Maggi R; Ferrari A
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol; 1993; 14(3):234-6. PubMed ID: 8508881
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Diagnostic accuracy of squamous cervical lesions studied in spatula-cytobrush smears.
Alons-van Kordelaar JJ; Boon ME
Acta Cytol; 1988; 32(6):801-4. PubMed ID: 3059733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of Cytobrush sampling, spatula sampling and combined Cytobrush-spatula sampling of the uterine cervix.
Buntinx F; Boon ME; Beck S; Knottnerus JA; Essed GG
Acta Cytol; 1991; 35(1):64-8. PubMed ID: 1994637
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Liquid-based cervical-cell collection with brushes and wooden spatulas: a comparison of 100 conventional smears from high-risk women to liquid-fixed cytocentrifuge slides, demonstrating a cost-effective, alternative monolayer slide preparation method.
Johnson T; Maksem JA; Belsheim BL; Roose EB; Klock LA; Eatwell L
Diagn Cytopathol; 2000 Feb; 22(2):86-91. PubMed ID: 10649517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Multicenter masked evaluation of AutoCyte PREP thin layers with matched conventional smears. Including initial biopsy results.
Bishop JW; Bigner SH; Colgan TJ; Husain M; Howell LP; McIntosh KM; Taylor DA; Sadeghi MH
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):189-97. PubMed ID: 9479339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Consequences of the introduction of combined spatula and Cytobrush sampling for cervical cytology. Improvements in smear quality and detection rates.
Boon ME; Alons-van Kordelaar JJ; Rietveld-Scheffers PE
Acta Cytol; 1986; 30(3):264-70. PubMed ID: 3521176
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Evaluation of the CytoRich slide preparation process.
Laverty CR; Farnsworth A; Thurloe JK; Grieves A; Bowditch R
Anal Quant Cytol Histol; 1997 Jun; 19(3):239-45. PubMed ID: 9196807
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of spatula and nonspatula methods for cervical sampling.
Rammou-Kinia R; Anagnostopoulou I; Gomousa M
Acta Cytol; 1991; 35(1):69-75. PubMed ID: 1994638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Clinical trials of the CytoRich specimen-preparation device for cervical cytology. Preliminary results.
Wilbur DC; Facik MS; Rutkowski MA; Mulford DK; Atkison KM
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):24-9. PubMed ID: 9022722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The AutoCyte preparation system for gynecologic cytology.
Howell LP; Davis RL; Belk TI; Agdigos R; Lowe J
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):171-7. PubMed ID: 9479336
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Efficacy of monolayer preparations for cervical cytology: emphasis on suboptimal specimens.
Vassilakos P; Cossali D; Albe X; Alonso L; Hohener R; Puget E
Acta Cytol; 1996; 40(3):496-500. PubMed ID: 8669185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Significant reduction in the rate of false-negative cervical smears with neural network-based technology (PAPNET Testing System).
Koss LG; Sherman ME; Cohen MB; Anes AR; Darragh TM; Lemos LB; McClellan BJ; Rosenthal DL; Keyhani-Rofagha S; Schreiber K; Valente PT
Hum Pathol; 1997 Oct; 28(10):1196-203. PubMed ID: 9343327
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Efficacy of the cytobrush versus the cotton swab in the collection of endocervical cells.
Kristensen GB; Hølund B; Grinsted P
Acta Cytol; 1989; 33(6):849-51. PubMed ID: 2588918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The value of the Cytobrush for obtaining cells from the uterine cervix.
Kawaguchi K; Nogi M; Ohya M; Nishikawa Y; Kobayashi TK
Diagn Cytopathol; 1987 Sep; 3(3):262-7. PubMed ID: 3665693
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Would monolayers provide more representative samples and improved preparations for cervical screening? Overview and evaluation of systems available.
McGoogan E; Reith A
Acta Cytol; 1996; 40(1):107-19. PubMed ID: 8604562
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The Cell-Sweep. A new cervical cytology sampling device.
Tyau L; Hernandez E; Anderson L; Heller P; Edmonds P
J Reprod Med; 1994 Nov; 39(11):899-902. PubMed ID: 7853282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of the CytoRich system with conventional cervical cytology. Preliminary data on 2,032 cases from a clinical trial site.
Bishop JW
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):15-23. PubMed ID: 9022721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. High-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and invasive carcinoma following the report of three negative Papanicolaou smears: screening failures or rapid progression?
Sherman ME; Kelly D
Mod Pathol; 1992 May; 5(3):337-42. PubMed ID: 1495939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
