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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

158 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]
    of 8.