110 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9861528)
41. Should the Cytobrush be used in routine screening for cervical pathology?
van Erp EJ; Dersjant-Roorda MC; Arentz NP; Stijnen T; Trimbos JB
Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 1989 Oct; 30(2):139-44. PubMed ID: 2572484
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. [Classification of cytological smears of the cervix with neuronal methods].
Kestler HA; Schulé M; Schwenker F; Neumann H; Mattfeldt T
Biomed Tech (Berl); 1999; 44(1-2):17-24. PubMed ID: 10194881
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Rapid screening of cervical smears as a method of internal quality control. For how long should we rescreen?
Farrell DJ; Bilkhu S; Gibson LM; Cummings L; Wadehra V
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(2):251-60. PubMed ID: 9100751
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Monolayer slide preparation and automated slide reading systems for cervical cancer screening--clinical-effectiveness analysis.
Tecnologica MAP Suppl; 1998 Feb; ():34-9. PubMed ID: 10183359
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
45. 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]
46. 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]
47. 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]
48. Sensitivity of primary screening by rapid review: 'to act or not to act on the results, that is the question'.
Slater DN
Cytopathology; 1998 Apr; 9(2):77-83. PubMed ID: 9577733
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
49. Use of the Autopap as a primary automated cervical cancer screening system.
Willey BB; Matz LR
Med J Aust; 2001 Feb; 174(3):151-2. PubMed ID: 11247624
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
50. Cervical screening.
Cook R
Nurs Stand; 1997 Sep; 11(51):40-4; quiz 45-6. PubMed ID: 9348926
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
51. Image analysis in cytology: DNA-histogramming versus cervical smear prescreening.
Bengtsson EW; Nordin B
Ann Biol Clin (Paris); 1993; 51(1):27-38. PubMed ID: 8338254
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Clinical inquiries. Should a nylon brush be used for Pap smears from pregnant women?
Holt J; Stiltner L; Jamieson B; Fashner J
J Fam Pract; 2005 May; 54(5):463-4. PubMed ID: 15865907
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
53. A new look at cervical cytology. ThinPrep multicenter trial results.
Hutchinson ML; Agarwal P; Denault T; Berger B; Cibas ES
Acta Cytol; 1992; 36(4):499-504. PubMed ID: 1636340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. Utility of the TracCell system in mapping Papanicolaou-stained cytologic material.
Grohs DH; Dadeshidze VV; Domanik RA; Gombrich PP; Olsson LJ; Pressman NJ
Acta Cytol; 1997; 41(1):144-52. PubMed ID: 9022737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Computer-assisted cervical cancer screening using neural networks.
Mango LJ
Cancer Lett; 1994 Mar; 77(2-3):155-62. PubMed ID: 8168062
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Comparison of the endocervical brush and the endocervical curettage for the evaluation of the endocervical canal.
Martin D; Umpierre SA; Villamarzo G; Sánchez O; Sánchez J; Carrodeguas J; Adamsons K
P R Health Sci J; 1995 Sep; 14(3):195-7. PubMed ID: 8588020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Changes to cervical screening in Australia: applying lessons learnt.
Farnsworth A
Med J Aust; 2014 Sep; 201(5):245-6. PubMed ID: 25163361
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
58. Multicenter comparison of manual and automated screening of AutoCyte gynecologic preparations.
Bishop JW; Kaufman RH; Taylor DA
Acta Cytol; 1999; 43(1):34-8. PubMed ID: 9987448
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. [The Thin Prep Pap Test; a platform for gynecologic diagnosis].
Scimia M
Pathologica; 2002 Feb; 94(1):63-4. PubMed ID: 11912883
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
60. Managing abnormal Pap smears: comments on two articles.
Buck HW
J Am Coll Health; 1989 Sep; 38(2):101-2. PubMed ID: 2778225
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
