Format
Sort by

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 32

1.

Clinical results of a split sample liquid-based cytology (ThinPrep) study of 4,322 patients in a Turkish institution.

Tuncer ZS, Ba┼čaran M, Sezgin Y, Firat P, Mocan Kuzey G.

Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2005;26(6):646-8.

PMID:
16398228
2.

The ThinPrep Pap test. A review of clinical studies.

Linder J, Zahniser D.

Acta Cytol. 1997 Jan-Feb;41(1):30-8. Review.

PMID:
9022723
3.
4.

Clinical significance of atypical glandular cells on cervical cytology.

Schnatz PF, Guile M, O'Sullivan DM, Sorosky JI.

Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Mar;107(3):701-8. Review.

PMID:
16507944
5.

Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, Martin-Hirsch P, Siebers AG, Bulten J.

Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jan;111(1):167-77. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000296488.85807.b3. Review.

PMID:
18165406
6.

[Precancerous cervical lesions during pregnancy: diagnostic and treatment].

Selleret L, Mathevet P.

J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2008 Feb;37 Suppl 1:S131-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jgyn.2007.11.018. Epub 2008 Jan 11. Review. French.

7.

The 'Pap' or cervical smear and the role of colposcopy in screening for carcinoma of the cervix.

Singh P, Ilancheran A.

Singapore Med J. 1989 Jun;30(3):302-5. Review.

PMID:
2686037
8.

Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review.

Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, Bastian LA, Hasselblad V, Hickey JD, Matchar DB.

Ann Intern Med. 2000 May 16;132(10):810-9. Review.

PMID:
10819705
9.

Technologic advances for evaluation of cervical cytology: is newer better?

Hartmann KE, Nanda K, Hall S, Myers E.

Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2001 Dec;56(12):765-74. Review.

PMID:
11753179
10.

Liquid-based cervical cytology.

Klinkhamer PJ, Meerding WJ, Rosier PF, Hanselaar AG.

Cancer. 2003 Oct 25;99(5):263-71. Review.

11.

[Computerised monitoring of integrated cervical screening. Indicators of diagnostic performance].

Bucchi L, Pierri C, Amadori A, Folicaldi S, Ghidoni D, Nannini R, Bondi A.

Pathologica. 2003 Dec;95(6):436-43. Review. Italian.

PMID:
15080522
12.

Cervicography. Does it improve cervical cancer screening?

Baldauf JJ, Dreyfus M, Ritter J, Meyer P, Philippe E.

Acta Cytol. 1997 Mar-Apr;41(2):295-301. Review.

PMID:
9100757
13.

Clinical inquiries. Is the ThinPrep better than conventional Pap smear at detecting cervical cancer?

Andy C, Turner LF, Neher JO.

J Fam Pract. 2004 Apr;53(4):313-5. Review. No abstract available.

PMID:
15068777
14.

Thin-layer technology: tempered enthusiasm.

Kurtycz DF, Hoerl HD.

Diagn Cytopathol. 2000 Jul;23(1):1-5. Review.

PMID:
10907923
15.

[Cervico-uterine cytology in liquid media: procedures and results of the ThinPrep Pap Test].

Dachez R, Monsonego J.

Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2000 Mar;28(3):250-3. Review. French. No abstract available.

PMID:
10786407
16.

Adolescents with ASCUS: are they a high risk group?

Arora CD, Schmidt DS, Rader AE, Abdul-Karim F, Lazebnik R.

Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2001 Mar;40(3):133-8. Review.

PMID:
11307958
17.

Quality control in cervical cytology.

Husain OA, Butler EB, Evans DM, Macgregor JE, Yule R.

J Clin Pathol. 1974 Dec;27(12):935-44. Review.

18.

Liquid-based cytology: is this the way forward for cervical screening?

Moseley RP, Paget S.

Cytopathology. 2002 Apr;13(2):71-82. Review.

PMID:
11952745
19.

Gynecologic cytology on conventional and liquid-based preparations: a comprehensive review of similarities and differences.

Hoda RS, Loukeris K, Abdul-Karim FW.

Diagn Cytopathol. 2013 Mar;41(3):257-78. doi: 10.1002/dc.22842. Epub 2012 Apr 17. Review.

PMID:
22508662
20.

[Papanicolau smears: reducing the false negative rate by improving the method].

Biran G, Levy T.

Harefuah. 2004 Mar;143(3):217-21, 245. Review. Hebrew.

PMID:
15065363
Items per page

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk