81 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9894452)
1. Accuracy and reproducibility of estimating the adequacy of the squamous component of cervicovaginal smears.
Renshaw AA; Friedman MM; Rahemtulla A; Granter SR; Dean BR; Cronin JA; Jiroutek M; Cibas ES
Am J Clin Pathol; 1999 Jan; 111(1):38-42. PubMed ID: 9894452
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Interobserver variability in assessing adequacy of the squamous component in conventional cervicovaginal smears.
Sheffield MV; Simsir A; Talley L; Roberson AJ; Elgert PA; Chhieng DC
Am J Clin Pathol; 2003 Mar; 119(3):367-73. PubMed ID: 12645338
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Accuracy and perceptions of virtual microscopy compared with glass slide microscopy in cervical cytology.
Evered A; Dudding N
Cytopathology; 2011 Apr; 22(2):82-7. PubMed ID: 20482714
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Variation in the assessment of adequacy in cervical smears.
Migliore G; Rossi E; Aldovini A; Mudu P; Alderisio M; Giovagnoli MR; Fabiano A; Morosini PL; Branca M
Cytopathology; 2001 Dec; 12(6):377-82. PubMed ID: 11843939
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Assessment of cervicovaginal smear adequacy. The Bethesda System guidelines and reproducibility.
Spires SE; Banks ER; Weeks JA; Banks HW; Davey DD
Am J Clin Pathol; 1994 Sep; 102(3):354-9. PubMed ID: 8085560
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Reproducibility of cervicovaginal ThinPrep cellularity assessment.
Haroon S; Samayoa L; Witzke D; Davey D
Diagn Cytopathol; 2002 Jan; 26(1):19-21. PubMed ID: 11782081
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Application of microscope-based scanning software (Panoptiq) for the interpretation of cervicovaginal cytology specimens.
Groen R; Abe K; Yoon HS; Li Z; Shen R; Yoshikawa A; Nitanda T; Shimizu Y; Otsuka I; Fukuoka J
Cancer Cytopathol; 2017 Dec; 125(12):918-925. PubMed ID: 28960858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Intralaboratory reproducibility in cervical cytology. Results of the application of a 100-slide set.
Confortini M; Biggeri A; Cariaggi MP; Carozzi FM; Minuti PA; Russo A; Palli D
Acta Cytol; 1993; 37(1):49-54. PubMed ID: 8434496
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the cytologic diagnosis of normal and abnormal metaplastic squamous cells in pap smears.
Gupta DK; Komaromy-Hiller G; Raab SS; Nath ME
Acta Cytol; 2001; 45(5):697-703. PubMed ID: 11575646
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Intralaboratory reproducibility of cervical cytology diagnoses in the external quality assurance scheme of the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy.
Sama D; Cotignoli T; Guerrini L; Maioli P; Sintoni C; Bucchi L
Gynecol Oncol; 1996 Mar; 60(3):404-8. PubMed ID: 8774647
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Digital slide imaging in cervicovaginal cytology: a pilot study.
Wright AM; Smith D; Dhurandhar B; Fairley T; Scheiber-Pacht M; Chakraborty S; Gorman BK; Mody D; Coffey DM
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 2013 May; 137(5):618-24. PubMed ID: 22970841
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Atypical Glandular Cells: Interobserver Variability according to Clinical Management.
Lepe M; Eklund CM; Quddus MR; Paquette C
Acta Cytol; 2018; 62(5-6):397-404. PubMed ID: 29969775
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The Bethesda System. A proposal for reporting abnormal cervical smears based on the reproducibility of cytopathologic diagnoses.
Sherman ME; Schiffman MH; Erozan YS; Wacholder S; Kurman RJ
Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1992 Nov; 116(11):1155-8. PubMed ID: 1444745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Accuracy of reporting endocervical component adequacy--a continuous quality improvement project.
Roberson J; Connolly K; St John K; Eltoum I; Chhieng DC
Diagn Cytopathol; 2002 Sep; 27(3):181-4. PubMed ID: 12203868
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Should adequacy criteria in cervicovaginal cytology be modified after radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or hysterectomy?
Lu CH; Chang CC; Ho ES; Chen SJ; Lin SJ; Fu TF; Chang MC
Cancer Cytopathol; 2010 Dec; 118(6):474-81. PubMed ID: 20862703
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Assessment of specimen adequacy reproducibility: an Italian experience.
Montanari G; Confortini M; Bellomi A; Cocchi V; Dalla Palma P; D'Ambrosio E; Giovagnoli MR; Navone R; Ronco G;
Diagn Cytopathol; 2003 Apr; 28(4):224-6. PubMed ID: 12672101
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Analysis of the intralaboratory diagnostic variability in the Imola cervical screening program].
Fabbris E; Bucchi L; Folicaldi S; Amadori A; Ghidoni D; Medri M; Bondi A
Pathologica; 1998 Apr; 90(2):127-32. PubMed ID: 9619055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Improving consistency in cervical cytology reporting.
Mitchell H
J Natl Cancer Inst; 1993 Oct; 85(19):1592-6. PubMed ID: 8411232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Accuracy of a slide profiler for endocervical cell detection in no-further-review conventional Pap smears.
Rowe LR; Marshall CJ; Berry M; Larson MA; Bentz JS
Acta Cytol; 2003; 47(4):602-4. PubMed ID: 12920753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The Bethesda System. Impact on reporting cervicovaginal specimens and reproducibility of criteria for assessing endocervical sampling.
Sherman ME; Weinstein M; Sughayer M; Cappellari JO; Orr JE; Erozan YS; Schiffman MH; Kurman RJ
Acta Cytol; 1993; 37(1):55-60. PubMed ID: 8434497
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
