110 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9784992)
1. Accuracy comparison between PAPNET diagnoses and conventional diagnoses in an Italian cervical cytology laboratory.
Ghidoni D; Fabbris E; Folicaldi S; Amadori A; Medri M; Bucchi L; Bondi A
Diagn Cytopathol; 1998 Oct; 19(4):279-83. PubMed ID: 9784992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [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]
3. PAPNET-assisted rescreening of cervical smears: cost and accuracy compared with a 100% manual rescreening strategy.
O'Leary TJ; Tellado M; Buckner SB; Ali IS; Stevens A; Ollayos CW
JAMA; 1998 Jan; 279(3):235-7. PubMed ID: 9438746
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [An interlaboratory study of the use of PapNet in the quality control of cervico-vaginal cytology].
Cosentino A; Ghidoni D; Salemi M; Folicaldi S; Amadori A; Zani J; Grasso G; Bondi A
Pathologica; 1999 Apr; 91(2):101-6. PubMed ID: 10484869
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Papnet-assisted cytological diagnosis intensifies the already marked variability among cytological laboratories.
Mudu P; Migliore G; Alderisio M; Morosini P; Douglas G; Navone R; Montanari G; Di Bonito L; Vitali A; Moretti D; Giovagnoli MR; Fulciniti F; Branca M;
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol; 2002; 23(3):211-5. PubMed ID: 12094957
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Evaluation of the PAPNET system in a general pathology service.
Farnsworth A; Chambers FM; Goldschmidt CS
Med J Aust; 1996 Oct; 165(8):429-31. PubMed ID: 8913244
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Evaluation of PAPNET system for rescreening of negative cervical smears.
Ashfaq R; Liang Y; Saboorian MH
Diagn Cytopathol; 1995 Jul; 13(1):31-6. PubMed ID: 7587873
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Simulation of primary cervical cancer screening by the PAPNET system in an unscreened, high-risk community.
Michelow PM; Hlongwane NF; Leiman G
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):88-92. PubMed ID: 9022732
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Papnet-assisted, primary screening of cervico-vaginal smears.
Duggan MA
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol; 2000; 21(1):35-42. PubMed ID: 10726616
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Significant reduction in the rate of false-negative cervical smears with neural network-based technology (PAPNET Testing System).
Koss LG; Sherman ME; Cohen MB; Anes AR; Darragh TM; Lemos LB; McClellan BJ; Rosenthal DL; Keyhani-Rofagha S; Schreiber K; Valente PT
Hum Pathol; 1997 Oct; 28(10):1196-203. PubMed ID: 9343327
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of the PAPNET system for prescreening triage of cervicovaginal smears.
Ashfaq R; Saliger F; Solares B; Thomas S; Liu G; Liang Y; Saboorian MH
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(4):1058-64. PubMed ID: 9250299
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Evaluation of the PAPNET cytologic screening system for quality control of cervical smears.
Koss LG; Lin E; Schreiber K; Elgert P; Mango L
Am J Clin Pathol; 1994 Feb; 101(2):220-9. PubMed ID: 8116579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Cost analysis of PAPNET-assisted vs. conventional Pap smear evaluation in primary screening of cervical smears.
Meerding WJ; Doornewaard H; van Ballegooijen M; Bos A; van der Graaf Y; van den Tweel JG; van der Schouw YT; Habbema JD
Acta Cytol; 2001; 45(1):28-35. PubMed ID: 11213501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Quality control of cervical cytology in high-risk women. PAPNET system compared with manual rescreening.
Bergeron C; Masseroli M; Ghezi A; Lemarie A; Mango L; Koss LG
Acta Cytol; 2000; 44(2):151-7. PubMed ID: 10740599
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Rescreen effect in conventional and PAPNET screening: observed in a study using material enriched with positive smears.
van Ballegooijen M; Beck S; Boon ME; Boer R; Habbema JD
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(5):1133-8. PubMed ID: 9755670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
