pubmed-article:10577637 | rdf:type | pubmed:Citation | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0920317 | lld:lifeskim |
pubmed-article:10577637 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C1516698 | lld:lifeskim |
pubmed-article:10577637 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0699733 | lld:lifeskim |
pubmed-article:10577637 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C1955832 | lld:lifeskim |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:issue | 9192 | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:dateCreated | 1999-12-10 | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:abstractText | Few randomised controlled trials have sufficient power to show clear advantages of different designs of cervical-smear collection devices. We studied by systematic review whether the design of cervical-smear devices affects rates of inadequate smears and detection of disease and whether the presence of endocervical cells in the smear affects detection of disease. | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:commentsCorrections | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:language | eng | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:journal | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:citationSubset | AIM | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:status | MEDLINE | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:month | Nov | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:issn | 0140-6736 | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:LilfordRR | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:KitchenerH... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:JarvisGG | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:Martin-Hirsch... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:issnType | Print | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:day | 20 | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:volume | 354 | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:owner | NLM | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:authorsComplete | Y | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:pagination | 1763-70 | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:dateRevised | 2007-11-15 | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:10577637... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:10577637... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:10577637... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:10577637... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:10577637... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:10577637... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:10577637... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:10577637... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:year | 1999 | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:articleTitle | Efficacy of cervical-smear collection devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:affiliation | University Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester, UK. | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:publicationType | Journal Article | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:publicationType | Comparative Study | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:publicationType | Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:10577637 | pubmed:publicationType | Meta-Analysis | lld:pubmed |
http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:10577637 | lld:pubmed |
http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:10577637 | lld:pubmed |
http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:10577637 | lld:pubmed |
http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:10577637 | lld:pubmed |