111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9539909)
1. PAPNET superior to rapid rescreening.
Wright RG
Med J Aust; 1998 Mar; 168(5):253-4. PubMed ID: 9539909
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Conventional Pap smears are unreliable.
Reid RI
Med J Aust; 1998 Mar; 168(5):252. PubMed ID: 9539907
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Increase Pap smear uptake.
Zardawi I
Med J Aust; 1998 Mar; 168(5):252. PubMed ID: 9539906
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Women have a right to the most accurate result.
Roberts JM; Bowditch R; Gurley AM; Laverty CR; Thurloe JK
Med J Aust; 1998 Mar; 168(5):252-3. PubMed ID: 9539908
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. PAPNET-assisted rescreening of cervical smears: cost and accuracy compared with a 100% manual rescreening strategy.
O'Leary TJ; Tellado M; Buckner SB; Ali IS; Stevens A; Ollayos CW
JAMA; 1998 Jan; 279(3):235-7. PubMed ID: 9438746
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Prospective study of PAPNET: review of 25,656 Pap smears negative on manual screening and rapid rescreening.
Halford JA; Wright RG; Ditchmen EJ
Cytopathology; 1999 Oct; 10(5):317-23. PubMed ID: 10588350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluation of PAPNET-assisted cervical rescreening.
Doornewaard H; Woudt JM; Strubbe P; van de Seijp H; van den Tweel JG
Cytopathology; 1997 Oct; 8(5):313-21. PubMed ID: 9313983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Computer-assisted rescreening of cervicovaginal smears stained by the Papanicolaou method. Evaluation of the PAPNET system apropos of 225 cases].
Vuong PN; Vacher-Lavenu MC; Marsan C; Baviera E
Arch Anat Cytol Pathol; 1995; 43(3):147-53. PubMed ID: 7574913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Is improved detection of adenocarcinoma in situ by screening a key to reducing the incidence of cervical adenocarcinoma?
Syrjänen K
Acta Cytol; 2004; 48(5):591-4. PubMed ID: 15471248
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. PAPNET-assisted primary screening of conventional cervical smears.
Cenci M; Nagar C; Vecchione A
Anticancer Res; 2000; 20(5C):3887-9. PubMed ID: 11268471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [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]
12. Opportunities to improve cervical cancer screening in the United States.
Kim JJ
Milbank Q; 2012 Mar; 90(1):38-41. PubMed ID: 22428691
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Quality assurance in cervical cytology screening. Comparison of rapid rescreening and the PAPNET Testing System.
Halford JA; Wright RG; Ditchmen EJ
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):79-81. PubMed ID: 9022730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [In Italy, more and more women undertake tests for early diagnosis of cervical cancer within organized screening programmes].
Carrozzi G; Sampaolo L; Bolognesi L; Bertozzi N; Ferrante G; Minardi V; Masocco M;
Epidemiol Prev; 2016; 40(6):476. PubMed ID: 27919156
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Pitfalls in the screening and early diagnosis of cervical cancer.
Wain GV; Hacker NF
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol; 1990 Feb; 2(1):74-9. PubMed ID: 2102310
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluation of the PAPNET cytologic screening system for quality control of cervical smears.
Koss LG; Lin E; Schreiber K; Elgert P; Mango L
Am J Clin Pathol; 1994 Feb; 101(2):220-9. PubMed ID: 8116579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Screening for cervix uteri cancer].
Borràs JM; Iglesias X
Med Clin (Barc); 1994; 102 Suppl 1():80-4. PubMed ID: 8170254
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Screening program serves fraction of those eligible.
Finkelstein JB
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Feb; 99(4):270-1. PubMed ID: 17312302
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. [Mass screening for cervical cancer. A one-year registration of cervical cytological tests].
Bjørge T; Gunbjørud AB; Langmark F; Skare GB; Thoresen SO
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 1994 Jan; 114(3):341-5. PubMed ID: 8191435
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Too much of a good thing?
Sirovich BE
Milbank Q; 2012 Mar; 90(1):42-6. PubMed ID: 22428692
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
