1978
DOI: 10.1007/bf00174102
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The 32P test and other methods in the diagnosis of intraocular tumours

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
1

Year Published

1980
1980
2003
2003

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 77 publications
(79 reference statements)
0
3
1
Order By: Relevance
“…According to Van Dijk, the differences in 32 P uptake are due to the mitotic activity of the tumor. 13 In the present analysis, the mitotic count was a highly significant prognostic factor (PϽ.001) but did not correlate with the result of the 32 P uptake test. This confirmed the finding of McLean and Shields, 21 who also could not show a significant correlation between 32 P uptake and the mitotic count.…”
Section: Commentcontrasting
confidence: 58%
“…According to Van Dijk, the differences in 32 P uptake are due to the mitotic activity of the tumor. 13 In the present analysis, the mitotic count was a highly significant prognostic factor (PϽ.001) but did not correlate with the result of the 32 P uptake test. This confirmed the finding of McLean and Shields, 21 who also could not show a significant correlation between 32 P uptake and the mitotic count.…”
Section: Commentcontrasting
confidence: 58%
“…Until now great improvements in the diagnosis of malignant melanomas of the eye in the last 20 years have been fluoresceinangiography in case of clear media (Norton et al 1964), A-and B-ultrasonography (Coleman et al 1973) and 3zP-test (van Dijk 1978;Brandt et al 1980). Although a high diagnostic reliability has been obtained at these centers of ultrasonography (-96%) and 32P-test (95%).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since then many authors have published mostly good results with high accuracy and negligible side-effects, and this test has become a widely accepted diagnostic procedure (Correns et al, 1961;van Dijk, 1978;Goldberg et al, 1980;Lommatzsch andGuntermann, 1967, 1971;Lommatzsch, 1977;McLean and Shields, 1978;Shields, 1980). Since then many authors have published mostly good results with high accuracy and negligible side-effects, and this test has become a widely accepted diagnostic procedure (Correns et al, 1961;van Dijk, 1978;Goldberg et al, 1980;Lommatzsch andGuntermann, 1967, 1971;Lommatzsch, 1977;McLean and Shields, 1978;Shields, 1980).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%