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.
5. Comparison of cytobrush and cotton swab for Papanicolaou smears in pregnancy. Rivlin ME, Woodliff JM, Bowlin RB, Moore JL, Martin RW, Grossman JH, Morrison JC. J Reprod Med; 1993 Feb; 38(2):147-50. PubMed ID: 8445608 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Cervex-Brush and Cytobrush. Comparison of their ability to sample abnormal cells for cervical smears. Hutchinson M, Fertitta L, Goldbaum B, Hamza M, Vanerian S, Isenstein L. J Reprod Med; 1991 Aug; 36(8):581-6. PubMed ID: 1941800 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. A comparison of the three most common Papanicolaou smear collection techniques. Germain M, Heaton R, Erickson D, Henry M, Nash J, O'Connor D. Obstet Gynecol; 1994 Aug; 84(2):168-73. PubMed ID: 8041524 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Efficacy of the cytobrush versus the cotton swab in the collection of endocervical cells. Kristensen GB, Hølund B, Grinsted P. Acta Cytol; 1989 Aug; 33(6):849-51. PubMed ID: 2588918 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. A randomized comparison of the 3 Papanicolaou smear collection methods. Kavak ZN, Eren F, Pekin S, Küllü S. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 1995 Nov; 35(4):446-9. PubMed ID: 8717577 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Cervical smears following laser treatment. Comparison of Cervex brush versus Cytobrush-Ayre spatula sampling. Szarewski A, Cuzick J, Singer A. Acta Cytol; 1991 Nov; 35(1):76-8. PubMed ID: 1994639 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Cervex-Brush vs. spatula and Cytobrush. A cytohistologic evaluation. Risberg B, Andersson A, Zetterberg C, Nordin B. J Reprod Med; 1997 Jul; 42(7):405-8. PubMed ID: 9252930 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Cervical cytology: a randomized comparison of four sampling methods. McCord ML, Stovall TG, Meric JL, Summitt RL, Coleman SA. Am J Obstet Gynecol; 1992 Jun; 166(6 Pt 1):1772-7; discussion 1777-9. PubMed ID: 1615986 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Analysis of five sampling methods for the preparation of cervical smears. Boon ME, de Graaff Guilloud JC, Rietveld WJ. Acta Cytol; 1989 Jun; 33(6):843-8. PubMed ID: 2588917 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of cytobrush with Cervex-Brush for endocervical cytologic sampling. Neinstein LS, Church J, Akiyoshi T. J Adolesc Health; 1992 Sep; 13(6):520-3. PubMed ID: 1390820 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. [Acceptable quality cervical cytology taking: comparison of Cervex-brush and Cervex-mex methods]. Ojeda Ortiz J, Muñoz Molina R, Pardo López M, Guevara Cruz M, Hernández Quijano T, Valencia Elizondo C, Hernández Valencia M. Ginecol Obstet Mex; 2008 Jul; 76(7):381-5. PubMed ID: 18798438 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. A randomized trial of three methods of obtaining Papanicolaou smears. Pretorius RG, Sadeghi M, Fotheringham N, Semrad N, Watring WG. Obstet Gynecol; 1991 Nov; 78(5 Pt 1):831-6. PubMed ID: 1923208 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] Page: [Next] [New Search]