Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 298

1.

Quality control in cervical cancer screening: Brazilian experience.

Collaço LM, de Noronha L, Bleggi-Torres LF, Pinheiro DL.

Acta Cytol. 2005 Nov-Dec;49(6):694-6. No abstract available.

PMID:
16450916
2.

Rapid pre-screening of cervical smears as a method of internal quality control in a cervical screening programme.

Tavares SB, de Sousa NL, Manrique EJ, de Albuquerque ZB, Zeferino LC, Amaral RG.

Cytopathology. 2008 Aug;19(4):254-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2008.00562.x. Epub 2008 May 9.

PMID:
18476988
3.

Scan-and-treat methodology using Azure A fast stain as a cost-effective cervical cancer screening alternative to visual inspection with acetic acid.

Guillaud M, Benedet JL, Follen M, Crain BT, MacAulay C.

Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Oct;107(1 Suppl 1):S256-9. Epub 2007 Sep 7. No abstract available.

PMID:
17825881
4.

Improving the sensitivity of cervical cytology: what are the issues?

Myers ER.

Am J Manag Care. 2000 Jul;6(7):838-40. No abstract available.

5.

Rapid review.

Faraker CA.

Cytopathology. 1998 Apr;9(2):71-6. Review. No abstract available.

PMID:
9660635
6.

Colposcopy, cervical screening, and HPV. Preface.

Waxman AG.

Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2008 Dec;35(4):xv-xvi. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2008.10.001. No abstract available.

PMID:
19061813
7.
8.

[A reply on cervix cancer screening: cervical cytological test doesn't fulfil the requirements of a good screening test].

Bistoletti P.

Lakartidningen. 2000 Sep 13;97(37):4042. Swedish. No abstract available.

PMID:
11036367
9.

Liquid-based cytology: an Australian experience.

Farnsworth A.

Cytopathology. 2003 Apr;14(2):48-52. No abstract available.

PMID:
12713474
10.

Is it reality or an illusion that liquid-based cytology is better than conventional cervical smears?

Linder J.

Cytopathology. 2002 Feb;13(1):66. No abstract available.

PMID:
11985572
11.

Automation of primary screening for cervical cancer. Sooner or later?

Bartels PH, Vooijs GP.

Acta Cytol. 1999 Jan-Feb;43(1):7-12. No abstract available.

PMID:
9987443
12.

In vitro conventional cytology historical strengths and current limitations.

Spitzer M.

Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2002 Dec;29(4):673-83. Review.

PMID:
12509091
13.

[Cervix cancer screening can be cost-effective. Combination of vaginal smears and the HPV test should be even more beneficial].

Bistoletti P, Ellström A, Dillner J, Sennfält K, Sparén P, Strander B.

Lakartidningen. 2005 Jun 13-26;102(24-25):1874-6, 1878-9. Swedish. No abstract available.

PMID:
16044766
14.

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
15.
16.

[Estimation of the recruitment rate in cytological screening for cancer of the uterine cervix].

Raymond L, Riotton G.

Soz Praventivmed. 1977 Jul-Aug;22(4):176-7. French. No abstract available.

PMID:
605679
17.

Introduction to and update of "cost effectiveness in new technology in cervix cancer screening".

Robinowitz M.

Epidemiology. 2002 May;13 Suppl 3:S23-5. No abstract available.

PMID:
12071479
18.

Evaluation of 100% rapid rescreening of negative cervical smears as a quality assurance measure.

Manrique EJ, Amaral RG, Souza NL, Tavares SB, Albuquerque ZB, Zeferino LC.

Cytopathology. 2006 Jun;17(3):116-20.

PMID:
16719853
19.

Is it reality or an illusion that liquid-based cytology is better than conventional cervical smears?

Kitchener HC.

Cytopathology. 2002 Feb;13(1):64-5. No abstract available.

PMID:
11985571
20.

Cost effectiveness in new technology in cervix cancer screening.

Sedlacek TV.

Epidemiology. 2002 May;13 Suppl 3:S26-9.

PMID:
12071480

Supplemental Content

Support Center