Comparision of Effectiveness between the ![]() |
Kim, Hyun-Kyung
(Department of Pathology, Yonsei University School of Medicine, YoungDong Severance Hospital)
Pyo, Ju-Yeon (Department of Pathology, Yonsei University School of Medicine, YoungDong Severance Hospital) Lee, Yoon-Hee (Department of Pathology, Yonsei University School of Medicine, YoungDong Severance Hospital) Jung, Woo-Hee (Department of Pathology, Yonsei University School of Medicine, YoungDong Severance Hospital) Kim, Se-Hoon (Department of Pathology, Yonsei University School of Medicine, YoungDong Severance Hospital) Hong, Soon-Won (Department of Pathology, Yonsei University School of Medicine, YoungDong Severance Hospital) |
1 | Marwah S, Devlin D, Dekker A. A comparative cytologic study of 100 urine specimens processed by the slide centrifuge and membrane filter techniques. Acta Cytol 1978;22:431-4 |
2 | Biscotti CV, Shorie JH, Gramlich TL, Easley KA. ThinPrep vs conventional smear cytologic preparations in analyzing fine-needle aspiration specimens from palpable breast masses. Diagn Cytopathol 1999 21:137-41 DOI ScienceOn |
3 | Papillo JL, Lapen D. Cell yield: ThinPrep vs. Cytocentrifuge. Acta Cytol 1994;38:33-6 |
4 | Bollmann M, Heller H, Bankfalvi A, Griefingholt H, Bollmann R. Quantitative molecular urinary cytology by fluorescence in situ hybridization: a tool for tailoring surveillance of patients with superficial bladder cancer? BJU Int. 2005;95:1219-25 DOI ScienceOn |
5 | Leung CS, Chiu B, Bell V. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations: non-gynaecologic cytology evaluation. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;16:368-71 DOI ScienceOn |
6 | Ha HJ, Kim JS, Shin MS, Jung JH, Koh JS, Cho KJ. Comparison of cytologic smear with ThinPrep and conventional method. Korean J Cytopathol Abstract 1999;1:15 |
7 | Park YW, Chung JH, Lee HM. A Comparison of the availability of the urine ThinPrep(R)test and urine cytology in the diagnosis of bladder cancer. Korean J Urol 2003;44:734-8 |
8 | Wilbur DC, Cibas ES, Merritt S et al. ThinPrep processor. Clinical trial demonstrates an increased detection rate of abnormal cervical cytology specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;101:209-14 DOI |
9 | Beech DP, Allbee A, Atanaso PE, Moore TL, Bell DA. A comparison of voided urine samples processed by the Cytyc ThinPrep Processor and the Shandon Cyto-Spin II (poster abstract). Acta Cytol 1992;36:583 |
10 | Wright RG, Halford JA. Evaluation of thin-layer methods in urine cytology. Cytopathology 2001;12:306-13 DOI ScienceOn |
11 | Barrett DL, King EB. Comparison of cellular recovery rates and morphological detail obtained using membrane filter and cytocentrifuge techniques. Acta Cytol 1976;20:174-80 |
12 | Howell LP, DavisRL, Belk TI, Agdigos R, Lowe J. The autocyte preparation system for gynaecological cytology. Acta Cytol 1998;42:171-7 DOI ScienceOn |
13 | Luthra UK, Dey P, George J et al. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations: urine cytology evaluation. Diagnostic Cytopathol 1999;21:364-5 DOI ScienceOn |
14 | Nicol TL, Kelly D, Reynolds L, Rosenthal DL. Comparison of TriPath thinlayer technology with conventional methods of nongynaecologic specimens. Acta Cytol 2000;44:567-75 DOI ScienceOn |
15 | Nassar H, Ali-Fehmi R, Madan S. Use of ThinPrep monolayer technique and cytospin preparation in urine cytology: a comparative analysis. Diagn Cytopathol 2003;28:115-8 DOI ScienceOn |
16 | Piaton E, Faynel J, Ruffion A, Lopez JG, Perrin P, Devonec M. p53 immunodetection of liquid-based processed urinary samples helps to identify bladder tumours with a higher risk of progression. Br J Cancer 2005;93:242-7 DOI ScienceOn |
17 | Choi YD, Shim MK, Lee KH, Choi C, Park CS, Nam JH. The effectiveness of ThinPrep method in urine cytology. Korean J Cytopathol Abstract 2005;2:29 |
![]() |