163 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9660635)
21. [Partial re-screening of all negative smears. A method of quality control of pathology department concerning smear screening against cervix cancer].
Jensen ML; Dybdahl H; Svanholm H
Ugeskr Laeger; 2000 May; 162(21):3024-7. PubMed ID: 10850190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Implementation and evaluation of a national external quality control program for cervical cytology in Mexico.
Flisser A; García-Malo F; Canepa Mde L; Doncel S; Espinoza R; Moreno R; Avila I; Pérez-Palacios G; Tapia-Conyer R; de la Fuente JR
Salud Publica Mex; 2002; 44(5):431-6. PubMed ID: 12389486
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. Achievable standards, benchmarks for reporting and criteria for evaluating cervical cytopathology.
Dalla Palma P
Cytopathology; 1997 Jun; 8(3):210. PubMed ID: 9202897
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Medicolegal affairs. International Academy of Cytology Task Force summary. Diagnostic Cytology Towards the 21st Century: An International Expert Conference and Tutorial.
Frable WJ; Austin RM; Greening SE; Collins RJ; Hillman RL; Kobler TP; Koss LG; Mitchell H; Perey R; Rosenthal DL; Sidoti MS; Somrak TM
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):76-119; discussion 120-32. PubMed ID: 9479326
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Does the increased sensitivity of the new Papanicolaou (Pap) tests improve the cost-effectiveness of screening for cervical cancer?
Reust CE
J Fam Pract; 2001 Feb; 50(2):175. PubMed ID: 11219567
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
27. [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]
28. [How technology and vaccination have changed the Pap test].
Bondi A; Ghidoni D; Amadori A
Pathologica; 1999 Feb; 91(1):36-41. PubMed ID: 10396949
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Improving the sensitivity of cervical cytology: what are the issues?
Myers ER
Am J Manag Care; 2000 Jul; 6(7):838-40. PubMed ID: 11067380
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Comparison of false negative rates between 100% rapid review and 10% random full rescreening as internal quality control methods in cervical cytology screening.
Lee BC; Lam SY; Walker T
Acta Cytol; 2009; 53(3):271-6. PubMed ID: 19534266
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Metaanalysis of the accuracy of rapid prescreening relative to full screening of pap smears.
Arbyn M; Schenck U; Ellison E; Hanselaar A
Cancer; 2003 Feb; 99(1):9-16. PubMed ID: 12589640
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Rapid prescreening in gynecologic cytology: A more efficient quality assurance method.
Auger M
Cancer Cytopathol; 2011 Dec; 119(6):357-60. PubMed ID: 21954172
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. 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]
35. The pitfalls of cervical cancer screening.
Sedlis A
Contrib Gynecol Obstet; 1991; 18():103-14. PubMed ID: 1657521
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. The current status of the Papanicolaou smear.
Shingleton HM; Patrick RL; Johnston WW; Smith RA
CA Cancer J Clin; 1995; 45(5):305-20. PubMed ID: 7656133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Clinical experience with the thinPrep Imager System.
Dawson AE
Acta Cytol; 2006; 50(5):481-2. PubMed ID: 17017431
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Is cervical screening necessary in older women?
Cruickshank ME
Cytopathology; 2001 Dec; 12(6):351-3. PubMed ID: 11843936
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Cervical screening: quality assurance developments in Europe.
Patnick J
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol; 2000; 21(5):437-8. PubMed ID: 11198028
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
