Format
Sort by

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 94

1.

A simplified method for assessing cytotechnologist workload.

Vaickus LJ, Tambouret R.

Cancer Cytopathol. 2014 Jan;122(1):15-22. doi: 10.1002/cncy.21364. Epub 2013 Nov 6. Erratum in: Cancer Cytopathol. 2015 Aug;123(8):505.

2.

Increasing cytotechnologist workload above 100 slides per day using the BD FocalPoint GS imaging system negatively affects screening performance.

Levi AW, Galullo P, Gordy K, Mikolaiski N, Schofield K, Elsheikh TM, Harigopal M, Chhieng DC.

Am J Clin Pathol. 2012 Dec;138(6):811-5. doi: 10.1309/AJCPTYDD9G2NCUMF.

3.

Increasing cytotechnologist workload above 100 slides per day using the ThinPrep imaging system leads to significant reductions in screening accuracy.

Elsheikh TM, Kirkpatrick JL, Cooper MK, Johnson ML, Hawkins AP, Renshaw AA.

Cancer Cytopathol. 2010 Apr 25;118(2):75-82. doi: 10.1002/cncy.20065.

4.

Does the time of day or weekday affect screening accuracy? A pilot correlation study with cytotechnologist workload and abnormal rate detection using the ThinPrep Imaging System.

Elsheikh TM, Kirkpatrick JL, Fischer D, Herbert KD, Renshaw AA.

Cancer Cytopathol. 2010 Feb 25;118(1):41-6. doi: 10.1002/cncy.20060.

5.

Time consumed by microscopic and nonmicroscopic tasks in image-assisted gynecologic screening: Implications for workload assessment.

Renshaw AA, Underwood D, Aramoni G, Cash B, Croyle M, Deeds D, Dolar S, Gmitro S, Ray N, Sabo D, Shorie JA, Springer B, Weber Moffsinger D, Elsheikh TM.

Cancer Cytopathol. 2016 Jul;124(7):501-7. doi: 10.1002/cncy.21711. Epub 2016 Mar 10.

PMID:
26970244
6.

Selective screening for nongynecologic cytology specimens: modifying the screening process for improved efficiency and practice.

Marks-Jones DA, Sutkowski BA, Schoedel KE, Ohori NP.

Diagn Cytopathol. 2011 Oct;39(10):717-22. doi: 10.1002/dc.21449. Epub 2010 Nov 2.

PMID:
21919214
7.

Cytology workload calculation-has anything really changed?

Moriarty AT.

Cancer Cytopathol. 2011 Apr 25;119(2):77-9. doi: 10.1002/cncy.20141. Epub 2011 Mar 1. No abstract available.

8.

Measuring the significance of workload on performance of cytotechnologists in gynecologic cytology: a study using rapid prescreening.

Deschenes M, Renshaw AA, Auger M.

Cancer. 2008 Jun 25;114(3):149-54. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23497.

9.

Predicting screening sensitivity from workload in gynecologic cytology: a review.

Renshaw AA, Elsheikh TM.

Diagn Cytopathol. 2011 Nov;39(11):832-6. doi: 10.1002/dc.21541. Epub 2010 Nov 22. Review.

PMID:
21994194
10.

Sensitivity and workload for manual and automated gynecologic screening: best current estimates.

Renshaw AA, Elsheikh TM.

Diagn Cytopathol. 2011 Sep;39(9):647-50. doi: 10.1002/dc.21439. Epub 2010 Oct 13. Review.

PMID:
20945459
11.

Controls in quality assessment in gynecologic cytology: A rational approach to workload limits for the ThinPrep imaging system.

Renshaw AA, Elsheikh TM.

Diagn Cytopathol. 2010 Oct;38(10):772-5. doi: 10.1002/dc.21323.

PMID:
20091901
12.

HSIL, epithelial cell abnormality-adjusted workload, and the Thinprep imaging system.

Renshaw AA, Elsheikh TM.

Diagn Cytopathol. 2012 Mar;40(3):201-3. doi: 10.1002/dc.21529. Epub 2010 Nov 15.

PMID:
22334521
13.

American Society of Cytopathology workload recommendations for automated Pap test screening: developed by the productivity and quality assurance in the era of automated screening task force.

Elsheikh TM, Austin RM, Chhieng DF, Miller FS, Moriarty AT, Renshaw AA; American Society of Cytopathology.

Diagn Cytopathol. 2013 Feb;41(2):174-8. doi: 10.1002/dc.22817. Epub 2012 Feb 20.

PMID:
22351120
14.

Rapid prescreen of cervical liquid-based cytology preparations: results of a study in an academic medical center.

Frable WJ, Pedigo MA, Powers CN, Yarrell C, Ortiz B, Clark ME, Ebron T.

Diagn Cytopathol. 2012 Aug;40(8):691-7. doi: 10.1002/dc.21598. Epub 2010 Dec 31.

PMID:
22807384
15.

Rapid cervicovaginal smear screening: method of quality control and assessing individual cytotechnologist performance.

Pajtler M, Audy-Jurković S, Skopljanac-Macina L, Antulov J, Barisić A, Milicić-Juhas V.

Cytopathology. 2006 Jun;17(3):121-6.

PMID:
16719854
16.

Current status of cytology laboratories in anatomic pathology departments.

Buesa RJ.

Ann Diagn Pathol. 2010 Oct;14(5):347-54. doi: 10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2010.07.005.

PMID:
20850698
17.

A feasibility study of the AutoPap system location-guided screening.

Lee JS, Kuan L, Oh S, Patten FW, Wilbur DC.

Acta Cytol. 1998 Jan-Feb;42(1):221-6.

PMID:
9479344
18.

Automated screening versus manual screening: a comparison of the ThinPrep imaging system and manual screening in a time study.

Schledermann D, Hyldebrandt T, Ejersbo D, Hoelund B.

Diagn Cytopathol. 2007 Jun;35(6):348-52.

PMID:
17497655
19.

Individual estimated sensitivity and workload for manual screening of SurePath gynecologic cytology.

Ellis K, Renshaw AA, Dudding N.

Diagn Cytopathol. 2012 Feb;40(2):95-7. doi: 10.1002/dc.21495. Epub 2010 Nov 2. Erratum in: Diagn Cytopathol. 2012 Aug;40(8):754.

PMID:
22246923
20.

Daily workload guidelines for cytotechnologists utilizing automated, assisted-screening technologies.

Cytopathology Education and Technology Consortium (CETC).

Acta Cytol. 2003 May-Jun;47(3):463-6. No abstract available.

PMID:
12789932
Items per page

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk