These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

195 related items for PubMed ID: 1989710

  • 1.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. A randomized clinical trial comparing the Cytobrush and cotton swab for Papanicolaou smears.
    Koonings PP, Dickinson K, d'Ablaing G, Schlaerth JB.
    Obstet Gynecol; 1992 Aug; 80(2):241-5. PubMed ID: 1635737
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. The Cytobrush effect on Pap smear adequacy.
    Davey-Sullivan B, Gearhart J, Evers CG, Cason Z, Replogle WH.
    Fam Pract Res J; 1991 Mar; 11(1):57-64. PubMed ID: 2028815
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Comparison of the Cytobrush plus plastic spatula with the Cervex Brush for obtaining endocervical cells.
    Cannon JM, Blythe JG.
    Obstet Gynecol; 1993 Oct; 82(4 Pt 1):569-72. PubMed ID: 8377984
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Improved endocervical cell yield with Cytobrush.
    Deckert JJ, Staten SF, Palermo V.
    J Fam Pract; 1988 Jun; 26(6):639-41. PubMed ID: 3379366
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. [Comparison of the methods of cytobrush and Ayre spatula in the concentration of endocervical cells].
    Longatto Filho A, Maeda MY, Santos DR, de Andréa Filho A, Cavaliere MJ, Shih LW, Oyafuso MS.
    Rev Paul Med; 1991 Jun; 109(3):93-6. PubMed ID: 1947611
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Comparing two sampling techniques for endocervical cell recovery on Papanicolaou smears.
    Helderman G, Graham L, Cannon D, Waters K, Feller D.
    Nurse Pract; 1990 Nov; 15(11):30-2. PubMed ID: 2255424
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Comparison of spatula and nonspatula methods for cervical sampling.
    Rammou-Kinia R, Anagnostopoulou I, Gomousa M.
    Acta Cytol; 1991 Nov; 35(1):69-75. PubMed ID: 1994638
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Safety, efficacy and cost of three cervical cytology sampling devices in a prenatal clinic.
    Smith-Levitin M, Hernandez E, Anderson L, Heller P.
    J Reprod Med; 1996 Oct; 41(10):749-53. PubMed ID: 8913977
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. The Cell-Sweep. A new cervical cytology sampling device.
    Tyau L, Hernandez E, Anderson L, Heller P, Edmonds P.
    J Reprod Med; 1994 Nov; 39(11):899-902. PubMed ID: 7853282
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Controlled evaluation of implementing the Cytobrush technique to improve Papanicolaou smear quality.
    Murata PJ, Johnson RA, McNicoll KE.
    Obstet Gynecol; 1990 Apr; 75(4):690-5. PubMed ID: 2314788
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 10.