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.
104 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]
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]