157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9782760)
1. [Follow-up of non-negative cervical cytological smears in the county of Funen].
Dahl MB; Hølund B; Sørensen B; Ahrons S; Grinsted P; Poulsen EF
Ugeskr Laeger; 1998 Sep; 160(40):5798-801. PubMed ID: 9782760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Frequency and follow-up of non-negative cervical smears in the counties of Storstrøm, Vestsjaelland and Bornholm in 1979-1989].
Lynge E; Poll P; Larsen J; Schultz HB; Thommesen N
Ugeskr Laeger; 1993 Jan; 155(4):240-5. PubMed ID: 8430472
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Screening for cervical cancer in the county of Funen. Status of 25 years of development and experiences].
Hølund B; Grinsted P
Ugeskr Laeger; 2006 May; 168(22):2163-6. PubMed ID: 16768956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Risk of cervical cancer following negative smears in Maribo County, Denmark, 1966-1982.
Lynge E; Poll P
IARC Sci Publ; 1986; (76):69-86. PubMed ID: 3570417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effect of an antepartum Pap smear on the coverage of a cervical cancer screening programme: a population-based prospective study.
Nygård M; Daltveit AK; Thoresen SO; Nygård JF
BMC Health Serv Res; 2007 Jan; 7():10. PubMed ID: 17244348
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Evaluation of the follow-up of women aged 50-74 years after cervical cytological Ascus abnormalities in cancer screening: adherence to clinical practice guidelines in Isere, France; 1991-2000].
Billette-de-Villemeur A; Poncet F; Garnier A; Marron J; Le Marc'hadour F; Morens A; Rouault-Plantaz V; Ney M; Exbrayat C
Gynecol Obstet Fertil; 2009 Oct; 37(10):787-95. PubMed ID: 19782628
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [Cervical cancer screening for high risk women: is it possible? Results of a cervical cancer screening program in three suburban districts of Lyon].
Mignotte H; Perol D; Fontanière B; Nachury LP; Blanc-Jouvand A; Fouillat V; Chauvin F; Lasset C
Bull Cancer; 1999 Jun; 86(6):573-9. PubMed ID: 10417430
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Differences in screening history, tumour characteristics and survival between women with screen-detected versus not screen-detected cervical cancer in the east of The Netherlands, 1992-2001.
van der Aa MA; Schutter EM; Looijen-Salamon M; Martens JE; Siesling S
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2008 Aug; 139(2):204-9. PubMed ID: 18093720
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Less pap-2 results ('minor abnormalities') in the population screening for cervical cancer since the introduction of new guidelines in 1996].
Bos AB; van Ballegooijen M; van den Akker-van Marle ME; Habbema JD
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2002 Aug; 146(34):1586-90. PubMed ID: 12224483
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Improvement of diagnostic accuracy and screening conditions with liquid-based cytology.
Schledermann D; Ejersbo D; Hoelund B
Diagn Cytopathol; 2006 Nov; 34(11):780-5. PubMed ID: 17041948
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Characterization of "non-attenders" in an organized screening against cancer of cervix uteri].
Larsen LP; Olesen F
Ugeskr Laeger; 1996 May; 158(21):2987-91. PubMed ID: 8686037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The agreement between self-reported cervical smear abnormalities and screening programme records.
Canfell K; Beral V; Green J; Cameron R; Baker K; Brown A
J Med Screen; 2006; 13(2):72-5. PubMed ID: 16792828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. [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]
14. Screening-preventable cervical cancer risks: evidence from a nationwide audit in Sweden.
Andrae B; Kemetli L; Sparén P; Silfverdal L; Strander B; Ryd W; Dillner J; Törnberg S
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2008 May; 100(9):622-9. PubMed ID: 18445828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [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]
16. Pathways to diagnosis of cervical cancer: screening history, delay in follow up, and smear reading.
Priest P; Sadler L; Peters J; Crengle S; Bethwaite P; Medley G; Jackson R
BJOG; 2007 Apr; 114(4):398-407. PubMed ID: 17166215
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Consequences of incorrect interpretation of vaginal smear tests in a screening program].
Lynge E; Arffmann E; Poll P; Andersen PK
Ugeskr Laeger; 1994 Apr; 156(17):2594-6. PubMed ID: 8016968
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Cervical screening in HIV-positive women: characteristics of those who default and attitudes towards screening.
Shah S; Montgomery H; Smith C; Madge S; Walker P; Evans H; Johnson M; Sabin C
HIV Med; 2006 Jan; 7(1):46-52. PubMed ID: 16313292
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Vaginal smear history in patients with invasive cervical carcinoma.
Grundsell H; Johnsson JE; Lindberg LG; Ström H; Tekavec E; Tropé C; Bekassy Z
Ann Chir Gynaecol; 1979; 68(4):127-9. PubMed ID: 533219
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Adverse incidents in a cervical cancer screening programme].
Bro F; Svanholm H; Støvring H; Frandsen C
Ugeskr Laeger; 2008 Sep; 170(36):2794-7. PubMed ID: 18761876
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
