129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9987733)
1. Results of AutoPap system-assisted and manual cytologic screening. A comparison.
Wertlake P
J Reprod Med; 1999 Jan; 44(1):11-7. PubMed ID: 9987733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. A clinical trial of the AutoPap 300 QC system for quality control of cervicovaginal cytology in the clinical laboratory.
Colgan TJ; Patten SF; Lee JS
Acta Cytol; 1995; 39(6):1191-8. PubMed ID: 7483997
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The AutoPap 300 QC System multicenter clinical trials for use in quality control rescreening of cervical smears: I. A prospective intended use study.
Patten SF; Lee JS; Wilbur DC; Bonfiglio TA; Colgan TJ; Richart RM; Cramer H; Moinuddin S
Cancer; 1997 Dec; 81(6):337-42. PubMed ID: 9438458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. One hundred percent thorough quality control rescreening of liquid-based monolayers in cervicovaginal cytopathology.
Rowe LR; Marshall CJ; Bentz JS
Cancer; 2002 Dec; 96(6):325-9. PubMed ID: 12478679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Endometrial cells and the AutoPap System for primary screening of cervicovaginal Pap smears.
Walts AE; Thomas P
Diagn Cytopathol; 2002 Oct; 27(4):232-7. PubMed ID: 12357502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The AutoPap 300 QC System multicenter clinical trials for use in quality control rescreening of cervical smears: II. Prospective and archival sensitivity studies.
Patten SF; Lee JS; Wilbur DC; Bonfiglio TA; Colgan TJ; Richart RM; Cramer H; Moinuddin S
Cancer; 1997 Dec; 81(6):343-7. PubMed ID: 9438459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A feasibility study of the AutoPap system location-guided screening.
Lee JS; Kuan L; Oh S; Patten FW; Wilbur DC
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):221-6. PubMed ID: 9479344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Does use of the AutoPap assisted primary screener improve cytologic diagnosis?
Bibbo M; Hawthorne C; Zimmerman B
Acta Cytol; 1999; 43(1):23-6. PubMed ID: 9987445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A more accurate measure of the false-negative rate of Papanicolaou smear screening is obtained by determining the false-negative rate of the rescreening process.
Renshaw AA; DiNisco SA; Minter LJ; Cibas ES
Cancer; 1997 Oct; 81(5):272-6. PubMed ID: 9349513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Rapid prescreening of Papanicolaou smears: a practical and efficient quality control strategy.
Djemli A; Khetani K; Auger M
Cancer; 2006 Feb; 108(1):21-6. PubMed ID: 16302251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [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]
13. Determining the utility and effectiveness of the NeoPath AutoPap 300 QC System used routinely.
Fetterman B; Pawlick G; Koo H; Hartinger J; Gilbert C; Connell S
Acta Cytol; 1999; 43(1):13-22. PubMed ID: 9987444
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [The use of a computerised system in the reading of cytological cervicovaginals smears during programming of regional screening (one year of experience using the autopap system)].
Orlassino R; Fabbrini T; Gallo C; Vineis C
Pathologica; 2005 Apr; 97(2):78-83. PubMed ID: 16032952
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Low proportion of false-negative smears in the Finnish program for cervical cancer screening.
Lönnberg S; Anttila A; Kotaniemi-Talonen L; Kujari H; Melkko J; Granroth G; Vornanen M; Pietiläinen T; Sankila A; Arola J; Luostarinen T; Nieminen P
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2010 Feb; 19(2):381-7. PubMed ID: 20142239
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The AutoPap system for primary screening in cervical cytology. Comparing the results of a prospective, intended-use study with routine manual practice.
Wilbur DC; Prey MU; Miller WM; Pawlick GF; Colgan TJ
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):214-20. PubMed ID: 9479343
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effectiveness of automated cervical cytology rescreening using the AutoPap 300 QC System.
Stevens MW; Milne AJ; James KA; Brancheau D; Ellison D; Kuan L
Diagn Cytopathol; 1997 Jun; 16(6):505-12. PubMed ID: 9181316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Impact of the AutoPap (currently Focalpoint) primary screening system location guide use on interpretation time and diagnosis.
Ronco G; Vineis C; Montanari G; Orlassino R; Parisio F; Arnaud S; Berardengo E; Fabbrini T; Segnan N
Cancer; 2003 Apr; 99(2):83-8. PubMed ID: 12704687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Neural-network-assisted analysis and microscopic rescreening in presumed negative cervical cytologic smears. A comparison.
Mango LJ; Valente PT
Acta Cytol; 1998; 42(1):227-32. PubMed ID: 9479345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. [Automation of cytological analysis of cervical smears].
Cenci M; Giovagnoli MR; Olla SV; Drusco A; Vecchione A
Minerva Ginecol; 1999; 51(7-8):291-8. PubMed ID: 10536424
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
