A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Saccomanno smear slides and Megafunnel slides for sputum specimens. A comparison. | LitMetric

Objective: To compare Megafunnel slides to standard Saccomanno smear slides of sputum specimens and evaluate the use of Megafunnel slides for retrospective studies.

Study Design: Papanicolaou-stained Saccomanno smear and Megafunnel slides (Shandon Lipshaw, Inc., Shandon Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) of 65 clinical sputum specimens from 51 patients were compared for cellular morphology, staining, background and cytologic diagnosis. Recovery of diagnostic cells was quantitated using 10 of these specimens. Megafunnel slides prepared from the clinical sputum samples were immunocytochemically stained. Diagnostic cells were quantitated both before removal from 64 archived Saccomanno smear slides and after placement of these cells onto 238 Megafunnel slides.

Results: Saccomanno smear slides and Megafunnel slides of clinical specimens were similar in morphology, background, staining, diagnosis and cell recovery. Megafunnel slides were superior for multiple immunocytochemical stains. The production of multiple Megafunnel slides from archival smear slides provided a method of performing numerous retrospective studies.

Conclusion: Megafunnel slides compared favorably to Saccomanno smear slides in the quality of specimens but are more expensive and labor intensive to prepare. However, the reduction in screening time by cytotechnologists may be advantageous. Additionally, their potential use for immunocytochemistry, fluorescence in situ hybridization, or other special clinical and research analyses is very promising.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000333184DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

megafunnel slides
36
saccomanno smear
24
smear slides
24
slides
15
sputum specimens
12
megafunnel
10
slides megafunnel
8
slides sputum
8
clinical sputum
8
diagnostic cells
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!