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.
3. Rapid screening of cervical smears as a method of internal quality control. For how long should we rescreen? Farrell DJ; Bilkhu S; Gibson LM; Cummings L; Wadehra V Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(2):251-60. PubMed ID: 9100751 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Internal quality assurance of sensitivity of primary screening. Boxer ME Cytopathology; 1998 Oct; 9(5):349-50. PubMed ID: 9800134 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. The sensitivity of rapid (partial) review of cervical smears. Shield PW; Cox NC Cytopathology; 1998 Apr; 9(2):84-92. PubMed ID: 9577734 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Proposed guidelines for secondary screening (rescreening) instruments for gynecologic cytology. Intersociety Working Group for Cytology Technologies. Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):273-6. PubMed ID: 9479352 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Whole, Turret and step methods of rapid rescreening: is there any difference in performance? Montemor EB; Roteli-Martins CM; Zeferino LC; Amaral RG; Fonsechi-Carvasan GA; Shirata NK; Utagawa ML; Longatto-Filho A; Syrjanen KJ Diagn Cytopathol; 2007 Jan; 35(1):57-60. PubMed ID: 17173293 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Rapid (partial) prescreening of cervical smears: the quality control method of choice? Brooke D; Dudding N; Sutton J Cytopathology; 2002 Aug; 13(4):191-9. PubMed ID: 12269891 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Invited commentary--Rapid review: current practice. Faraker CA Cytopathology; 2001 Aug; 12(4):249-50. PubMed ID: 11488873 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Improvement in the routine screening of cervical smears: A study using rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review as internal quality control methods. Tavares SB; Alves de Sousa NL; Manrique EJ; Pinheiro de Albuquerque ZB; Zeferino LC; Amaral RG Cancer Cytopathol; 2011 Dec; 119(6):367-76. PubMed ID: 21954191 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The cost-effectiveness of cervical-vaginal rescreening. Raab SS Am J Clin Pathol; 1997 Nov; 108(5):525-36. PubMed ID: 9353091 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Rapid rescreening of cervical smears as a quality control method. Cross PA Cytopathology; 1997 Apr; 8(2):79-84. PubMed ID: 9134332 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. ViraPap: can it help to reduce the need for colposcopy? Mareck DG; Woolard DG Fam Pract Res J; 1991 Dec; 11(4):405-14. PubMed ID: 1662859 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]