195 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9782761)
1. [Evaluation of PAPNET--a semiautomated system used in the screening against cervical cancer].
Hølund B; Ejersbo D; Hjortebjerg A
Ugeskr Laeger; 1998 Sep; 160(40):5802-6. PubMed ID: 9782761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Performance of a semiautomated Papanicolaou smear screening system: results of a population-based study conducted in Guanacaste, Costa Rica.
Sherman ME; Schiffman M; Herrero R; Kelly D; Bratti C; Mango LJ; Alfaro M; Hutchinson ML; Mena F; Hildesheim A; Morales J; Greenberg MD; Balmaceda I; Lorincz AT
Cancer; 1998 Oct; 84(5):273-80. PubMed ID: 9801201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of the cervical cytology test using the PAPNET method and conventional microscopy.
Weissbrod D; Torres M; Rodríguez A; Ureña I; Estrada J; Reyes ME; Carreto AJ
Bull Pan Am Health Organ; 1996 Dec; 30(4):339-47. PubMed ID: 9041745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Automated screening for quality control using PAPNET: a study of 638 negative Pap smears.
Keyhani-Rofagha S; Palma T; O'Toole RV
Diagn Cytopathol; 1996 Jun; 14(4):316-20. PubMed ID: 8725131
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. [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]
6. The diagnostic value of computer-assisted primary cervical smear screening: a longitudinal cohort study.
Doornewaard H; van der Schouw YT; van der Graaf Y; Bos AB; Habbema JD; van den Tweel JG
Mod Pathol; 1999 Nov; 12(11):995-1000. PubMed ID: 10574595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [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]
8. [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]
9. Assessment of automated primary screening on PAPNET of cervical smears in the PRISMATIC trial. PRISMATIC Project Management Team.
Lancet; 1999 Apr; 353(9162):1381-5. PubMed ID: 10227217
[TBL] [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. [Comparison of monolayer specimens and conventional smears].
Jensen ML; Fuursted PB; Svanholm H
Ugeskr Laeger; 2001 Feb; 163(9):1270-5. PubMed ID: 11258251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Prospective and randomised public-health trial on neural network-assisted screening for cervical cancer in Finland: results of the first year.
Nieminen P; Hakama M; Viikki M; Tarkkanen J; Anttila A
Int J Cancer; 2003 Jan; 103(3):422-6. PubMed ID: 12471627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. PAPNET for cervical cytology screening. Experience in Greece.
Veneti S; Papaefthimiou M; Symiakaki H; Ioannidou-Mouzaka L
Acta Cytol; 1999; 43(1):30-3. PubMed ID: 9987447
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [The PAPNET system in cytological rescreening of cervical smears].
Cenci M; Nagar C; Giovagnoli MR; Vecchione A
Minerva Ginecol; 1997 Apr; 49(4):139-45. PubMed ID: 9206764
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Costs and outcomes of PAPNET secondary screening technology for cervical cytologic evaluation. A community hospital's experience.
Brotzman GL; Kretzchmar S; Ferguson D; Gottlieb M; Stowe C
Arch Fam Med; 1999; 8(1):52-5. PubMed ID: 9932072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Computer-assisted rescreening of clinically important false negative cervical smears using the PAPNET Testing System.
Rosenthal DL; Acosta D; Peters RK
Acta Cytol; 1996; 40(1):120-6. PubMed ID: 8604564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Neural network processing of cervical smears can lead to a decrease in diagnostic variability and an increase in screening efficacy: a study of 63 false-negative smears.
Boon ME; Kok LP; Nygaard-Nielsen M; Holm K; Holund B
Mod Pathol; 1994 Dec; 7(9):957-61. PubMed ID: 7892166
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The PAPNET system for quality control of cervical smears: validation and limits.
Cenci M; Nagar C; Giovagnoli MR; Vecchione A
Anticancer Res; 1997; 17(6D):4731-4. PubMed ID: 9494597
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [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]
20. Comparison of HPV test versus conventional and automation-assisted Pap screening as potential screening tools for preventing cervical cancer.
Nieminen P; Vuorma S; Viikki M; Hakama M; Anttila A
BJOG; 2004 Aug; 111(8):842-8. PubMed ID: 15270934
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
