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

138 related items for PubMed ID: 8508881

  • 1. Endocervical detection of CIN. Cytobrush versus cotton.
    Schettino F, Sideri M, Cangini L, Candiani M, Zannoni E, Maggi R, Ferrari A.
    Eur J Gynaecol Oncol; 1993; 14(3):234-6. PubMed ID: 8508881
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 3.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. Sampling accuracy of the modified Ayre spatula/Zelsmyr Cytobrush versus the modified Ayre spatula/bulb aspirator in the collection of cells from the uterine cervix.
    Selvaggi SM, Malviya V.
    Diagn Cytopathol; 1991; 7(3):318-22. PubMed ID: 1879271
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 6. Consequences of the introduction of combined spatula and Cytobrush sampling for cervical cytology. Improvements in smear quality and detection rates.
    Boon ME, Alons-van Kordelaar JJ, Rietveld-Scheffers PE.
    Acta Cytol; 1986; 30(3):264-70. PubMed ID: 3521176
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Efficacy of the cytobrush versus the cotton swab in the collection of endocervical cells.
    Kristensen GB, Hølund B, Grinsted P.
    Acta Cytol; 1989; 33(6):849-51. PubMed ID: 2588918
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. 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]

  • 13. Improved endocervical sampling with the Cytobrush.
    Chalvardjian A, De Marchi WG, Bell V, Nishikawa R.
    CMAJ; 1991 Feb 01; 144(3):313-7. PubMed ID: 1989710
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. The value of the Cytobrush for obtaining cells from the uterine cervix.
    Kawaguchi K, Nogi M, Ohya M, Nishikawa Y, Kobayashi TK.
    Diagn Cytopathol; 1987 Sep 01; 3(3):262-7. PubMed ID: 3665693
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 16. The efficiency of the cytobrush and cotton swab in obtaining endocervical cells in smears taken after conization of the cervix.
    Kristensen GB, Jensen LK, Ejersbo D, Hølund B.
    Arch Gynecol Obstet; 1989 Sep 01; 246(4):207-10. PubMed ID: 2619334
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. 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 01; 41(10):749-53. PubMed ID: 8913977
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Collection devices for obtaining cervical cytology samples.
    Martin-Hirsch P, Jarvis G, Kitchener H, Lilford R.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2000 Oct 01; (3):CD001036. PubMed ID: 10908482
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Cervical smears following laser treatment. Comparison of Cervex brush versus Cytobrush-Ayre spatula sampling.
    Szarewski A, Cuzick J, Singer A.
    Acta Cytol; 1991 Oct 01; 35(1):76-8. PubMed ID: 1994639
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 7.