109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9784992)
41. Comparison of fluid-based, thin-layer processing and conventional Papanicolaou methods for uterine cervical cytology.
Wang TY; Chen HS; Yang YC; Tsou MC
J Formos Med Assoc; 1999 Jul; 98(7):500-5. PubMed ID: 10463000
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. 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]
43. Differences between false-negative and true-positive Papanicolaou smears on Papnet-assisted review.
Mitchell H; Medley G
Diagn Cytopathol; 1998 Aug; 19(2):138-40. PubMed ID: 9702494
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. New paradigm for ASCUS diagnosis using neural networks.
Kok MR; Habers MA; Schreiner-Kok PG; Boon ME
Diagn Cytopathol; 1998 Nov; 19(5):361-6. PubMed ID: 9812231
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Automated cervical cytology: meta-analyses of the performance of the PAPNET system.
Abulafia O; Sherer DM
Obstet Gynecol Surv; 1999 Apr; 54(4):253-64. PubMed ID: 10198930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. 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]
47. 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]
48. 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]
49. Quality assurance in cervical cytology screening. Comparison of rapid rescreening and the PAPNET Testing System.
Halford JA; Wright RG; Ditchmen EJ
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):79-81. PubMed ID: 9022730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. [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]
51. 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]
52. PAPNET. The human and other dimensions.
Husain OA; Kocjan G; Butler EB; McGloin JE
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(5):1439-44. PubMed ID: 9305381
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Efficacy of automated cervical cytology screening.
Slagel DD; Zaleski S; Cohen MB
Diagn Cytopathol; 1995 Jul; 13(1):26-30. PubMed ID: 7587871
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Cytohistologic correlation rates between conventional Papanicolaou smears and ThinPrep cervical cytology: a comparison.
Chacho MS; Mattie ME; Schwartz PE
Cancer; 2003 Jun; 99(3):135-40. PubMed ID: 12811853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. [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]
56. Atypical glandular cells of undetermined significance (AGUS): cytopathologic features, histopathologic results, and human papillomavirus DNA detection.
Ronnett BM; Manos MM; Ransley JE; Fetterman BJ; Kinney WK; Hurley LB; Ngai JS; Kurman RJ; Sherman ME
Hum Pathol; 1999 Jul; 30(7):816-25. PubMed ID: 10414501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Liquid-based cytology for primary cervical cancer screening: a multi-centre study.
Monsonego J; Autillo-Touati A; Bergeron C; Dachez R; Liaras J; Saurel J; Zerat L; Chatelain P; Mottot C
Br J Cancer; 2001 Feb; 84(3):360-6. PubMed ID: 11161401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Effectiveness of AutoPap system location-guided screening in the evaluation of cervical cytology smears.
Stevens MW; Milne AJ; Parkinson IH; Nespolon WW; Fazzalari NL; Arora N; Dodd TJ
Diagn Cytopathol; 2004 Aug; 31(2):94-9. PubMed ID: 15282720
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Improved quality-control detection of false-negative Pap smears using the Autopap 300 QC system.
Marshall CJ; Rowe L; Bentz JS
Diagn Cytopathol; 1999 Mar; 20(3):170-4. PubMed ID: 10086244
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Detection of laboratory false negative smears by the PAPNET cytologic screening system.
Mitchell H; Medley G
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):265-70. PubMed ID: 9479350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
