110 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9861528)
21. [Cervical smears. Contribution of automated screening].
Ziol M; Vacher-Lavenu MC
Ann Pathol; 1996 Nov; 16(5):351-5. PubMed ID: 9004722
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Roche Image Analysis Systems, Inc.
Knesel EA
Acta Cytol; 1996; 40(1):60-6. PubMed ID: 8604576
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. Improvement in the routine screening of cervical smears: A study using rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review as internal quality control methods.
Tavares SB; Alves de Sousa NL; Manrique EJ; Pinheiro de Albuquerque ZB; Zeferino LC; Amaral RG
Cancer Cytopathol; 2011 Dec; 119(6):367-76. PubMed ID: 21954191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Rapid rescreening.
Rubin A
Cytopathology; 1998 Apr; 9(2):141-2. PubMed ID: 9577744
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. The primary screening clinical trials of the TriPath AutoPap System.
Wilbur DC; Norton MK
Epidemiology; 2002 May; 13 Suppl 3():S30-3. PubMed ID: 12071481
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. NeoPath, Inc. NeoPath AutoPap 300 Automatic Pap Screener System.
Patten SF; Lee JS; Nelson AC
Acta Cytol; 1996; 40(1):45-52. PubMed ID: 8604574
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. The politics of pap smears.
Thompson J
Contemp Nurse; 1996 Mar; 5(1):4. PubMed ID: 8716998
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of automated and semi-automated cervical screening devices: a systematic review of the literature.
Broadstock M
N Z Med J; 2001 Jul; 114(1135):311-3. PubMed ID: 11556445
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Cervical screening in practice.
Fenwicke R
N Z Med J; 1989 Jul; 102(872):386. PubMed ID: 2797560
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
31. [Computer-assisted cervical screening].
van Kemenade FJ; Beerman H
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2011; 155(18):A2998. PubMed ID: 21466727
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Rapid review.
Faraker CA
Cytopathology; 1998 Apr; 9(2):71-6. PubMed ID: 9660635
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. Assisted primary screening using the automated ThinPrep Imaging System.
Biscotti CV; Dawson AE; Dziura B; Galup L; Darragh T; Rahemtulla A; Wills-Frank L
Am J Clin Pathol; 2005 Feb; 123(2):281-7. PubMed ID: 15842055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. The effects of different sampling techniques on smear quality and the diagnosis of cytological abnormalities in cervical screening.
Williamson SL; Hair T; Wadehra V
Cytopathology; 1997 Jun; 8(3):188-95. PubMed ID: 9202894
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. An evaluation of 'rapid review' as a method of quality control of cervical smears using the AxioHOME microscope.
Baker RW; Wadsworth J; Brugal G; Coleman DV
Cytopathology; 1997 Apr; 8(2):85-95. PubMed ID: 9134333
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Terminology, benchmarking and reporting in cervical cytology automation: the critical need for consistency.
Krieger P; Naryshkin S
Acta Cytol; 1996; 40(1):9-11. PubMed ID: 8604580
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Translational approaches to improving cervical screening.
Baldwin P; Laskey R; Coleman N
Nat Rev Cancer; 2003 Mar; 3(3):217-26. PubMed ID: 12612656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: a rapid and systematic review.
Payne N; Chilcott J; McGoogan E
Health Technol Assess; 2000; 4(18):1-73. PubMed ID: 10932023
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Automated screening of cervical cytology specimens.
Birdsong GG
Hum Pathol; 1996 May; 27(5):468-81. PubMed ID: 8621186
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Advances in cervical screening technology.
Stoler MH
Mod Pathol; 2000 Mar; 13(3):275-84. PubMed ID: 10757338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
