References
- 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
- 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
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/101.2.209
- Howell LP, DavisRL, Belk TI, Agdigos R, Lowe J. The autocyte preparation system for gynaecological cytology. Acta Cytol 1998;42:171-7 https://doi.org/10.1159/000331542
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0339(199908)21:2<137::AID-DC11>3.0.CO;2-O
- Leung CS, Chiu B, Bell V. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations: non-gynaecologic cytology evaluation. Diagn Cytopathol 1997;16:368-71 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0339(199704)16:4<368::AID-DC14>3.0.CO;2-I
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1159/000328531
- Papillo JL, Lapen D. Cell yield: ThinPrep vs. Cytocentrifuge. Acta Cytol 1994;38:33-6
- 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
- Luthra UK, Dey P, George J et al. Comparison of ThinPrep and conventional preparations: urine cytology evaluation. Diagnostic Cytopathol 1999;21:364-5 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0339(199911)21:5<364::AID-DC16>3.0.CO;2-4
- Wright RG, Halford JA. Evaluation of thin-layer methods in urine cytology. Cytopathology 2001;12:306-13 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2303.2001.00341.x
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.10245
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602684
- 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 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05509.x