Relation between sampling device and detection of abnormality in cervical smears: A meta-analysis of randomised and quasi-randomised studies

British Medical Journal

Volumn 313, Issue 7068, 1996, Pages 1285-1290

  Buntinx, Frank ^a,b   Brouwers, Marleen ^b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN   (Belgium)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HISTOLOGY; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SAMPLING; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; UTERINE CERVIX DYSPLASIA;

EID: 0029828417     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.313.7068.1285     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Papanicolaou GN, Traut HF. The diagnostic value of vaginal smears in carcinoma of the uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1941;42:193-206.
2. Ayre JE. Cervical cytology in diagnosis of early cancer. JAMA 1948;136:513-7.
3. Richart RM, Vaillant HW. Influence of cell collection techniques upon cytological diagnosis. Cancer 1965;18:1474-8.
4. Buntinx F, Essed GGM, Knottnerus JA, Crebolder HFJM. The effect of different sampling devices on the presence of endocervical cells in cervical smears. A meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer Prev 1994;3:23-30.
5. Boon ME. De cytobrush-methode. Een middel ter verbetering van de kwaliteit van door huisartsen gemaakte cervixuitstrijken. Huisarts Wet 1985;28:322-4.
6. Boon ME, Alons-van Kordelaar JJM, Rietveld-Scheffers PEM. Consequences of the combined spatula and Cytobrush sampling for cervical pathology. Acta Cytol 1986;30:264-70.
7. Elias A, Linthorst O, Bekker B, Vooijs PG. The significance of endocervical cells in the diagnosis of cervical epithelial changes. Acta Cytol 1983;27:225-9.
8. Vooijs GP, Elias A, van der Graaf Y, Poelen-van de Berg M. The influence of sample takers on the cellular composition of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1986;30:251-7.
9. Vooijs GP, van der Graaf Y, Elias AG. Cellular composition of cervical smears in relation to the day of the menstrual cycle and the method of contraception. Acta Cytol 1987;31:417-26.
10. Vooijs GP. Significance of cellular composition of smears for the reliability of cytological diagnosis. In: Goerttler K, Fiechter G, Witte S, eds. New frontiers in cytology. Berlin: Springer, 1988:412-20.
11. Laupacis A, Sacket DL, Roberts RS. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med 1988;318:1728-33.
12. Dean AG, Dean JA, Coulombier D, Brendel KA, Smith DC, Burton AH, et al. Epi Info, version 6: a word processing, database and statistics program for epidemiology on microcomputers. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1994.
13. Eddy DM, Hasselblad V. Fast-Pro, version 1.7. Boston: Academic Press, 1992.
14. Lundvall L, Hijgaard LL, Højgaard K, Lundrall F. Diagnostic value of an abnormal smear in non pregnant women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1990;6a:147-51.
15. Kuo AF, Stawnychy IR, Corzatt GR, Tekleab A. Adequacy of Papanicolaou smears: comparison of spatula sampling with combined spatula-Cytobrush sampling and analysis of the endocervical component. Acta Cytol 1990;34:740.
16. Alons-van Kordelaar JJM, Boon ME. Diagnostic accuracy of squamous cervical lesions studied in spatula-Cytobrush smears. Acta Cytol 1988;3-2:801-4.
17. Murata PJ, Johnson RA, McNicoll KE. Controlled evaluation of implementing the Cytobrush technique to improve Papanicolaou smear quality. Obstet Gynecol 1990;75:690-5.
18. Lai-Goldman M, Nieherg RK, Mulcahy D, Wiesmeier E. The Cytobrush for evaluating routine cervicovaginal-endocervical smears. J Reprod Med 1990;35:959-63.
19. Orr JW, Barrett JM, Orr PF, Holloway RW, Holimon JL. The efficacy and safety of the Cytobrush during pregnancy. Gynecol Oncol 1992;44:260-2.
20. Blenkinsopp WK, Jenkins JL. Cervical smears: choice of spatula is critical. Lancet 1986;i:986.
21. Struzziero E, Corbo M. Cytobrush e spatula di Ayre nel prelievo cervico-vaginale. Minerva Ginecol 1994;46:587-8.
22. Doornewaard H, van der Graaf Y. Contribution of the Cytobrush to determing cellular composition of cervical smears. J Clin Pathol 1990;43:393-6.
23. Cauthen DB, Cullisin M, Symm B, Peterson RF. Use effectiveness of the Cytobrush in the primary care setting. J Am Board Fam Pract 1991;5:365-8.
24. Spurret B, Ayer B, Pacey NF. The inadequacies of instruments used for cervical screening. Aust N Z Obstet Gynaecol 1989;29:44-6.
25. Johansen P, Arffmann E, Pallesen G. Evaluation of smears obtained bycervical scraping and an endocervical swab in the diagnosis of neoplastic disease of the uterine cervix. Acta Obstet Gynaecol Scand 1979;58:265-70.
26. Waddel CA, Rollason TP, Amarili JM, Cullemore J, McConkey CC. The cervix: an ectocervical brush sampler. Cytopathology 1990;1:171-81.
27. Boon ME, de Graaff JC, Rietveld WJ. Analysis of five sampling methods for the preparation of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1989;33:843-8.
28. Buntinx F, Boon ME, Beck S, Knottnerus JA, Essed GGM. Comparison of Cytobrush sampling, spatula sampling and combined Cytobrush-spatula sampling of the uterine cervix. Acta Cytol 1991;35:64-8.
29. Fokke HE, Salvatore CM, Schipper MEI, Bleker OP. A randomised trial of three methods of obtaining Papanicolaou smears. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1993;48:103-6.
30. Garite T, Feldman M. An evaluation of cytologic sampling techniques: a comparative study. Acta Cytol 1978;22:83-5.
31. Glenthoj A, Rank F, Peen U, Bostofte E. Diagnostic efficiency of brush cytology from the uterine cervix. In: Gierttler K, Füchter G, Witte S, eds. New frontiers in cytology. Berlin: Springer, 1988:421-4.
32. Goorney BP, Lacey CJN, Sutton J. Ayre v Aylesbury cervical spatulas. Genitourin Med 1989;65:161-2.
33. Hoffman MS, Hill DA, Gordy LW, Lane J, Cavanagh D. Comparing the yield of the standard Papanicolaou and endocervical brush smear. J Reprod Med 1991;36:267-9.
34. Hutchinson M, Fertitta L, Goldbaum B, Hamza M, Vanerian S, Isenstein L. Cervex-brush and Cytobrush: comparison of their ability to sample abnormal cells for cervical smears. J Reprod Med 1991;36:581-6.
35. Koonings PP, Dickinson K, d'Ablaing G, Schearth JB. A randomised clinical trial comparing the Cytobrush and cotton swab for Papanicolaou smears. Obstet Gynecol 1992;80:241-5.
36. Longfield JC, Grimshaw RN, Monaghan JM. Simultaneous sampling of the endocervix and ectocervix using the Profile brush. Acta Cytol 1993;37: 472-6.
37. Pistofides GA, Brown ER, Harris VG, Grainger JM, Spring JE, Carr JVL, et al. Detection of abnormal cervical smears. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1988;67:153-4.
38. Pretorius RG, Sadeghi M, Fotheringham N, Semrad N, Watring WG. A randomised trial of three methods of obtaining Papanicolaou smears. Obstet Gynecol 1991;78:831-6.
39. Rammou-Kinia R, Anagnostopoulou I, Gomousa M. Comparison of spatula and nonspatula methods for cervical samplingl Acta Cytol 1991;35:69-75.
40. Rivlin ME, Woodliff JM, Buwlin RB, Moore JL, Martin RW, Grossman JH, et al. Comparison of Cytobrush and cotton swab for Papanicolaou smears in pregnancy. J Reprod Med 1993;38:147-50.
41. Schettino F, Sideri M, Canfini L, Candiani M, Zannoni E, Maggi R, et al. Endocervical detection of CIN: Cytobrush versus cotton. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 1993;14:234-6.
42. Selvaggi SM, Malviya V. Sampling accuracy of the modified Ayre spatula/Zelsmyr Cytobrush versus the modified Ayre spatula/bulb aspirator in the collection of cells from the uterine cervix. Diagn Cytopathol 1991;7:318-21.
43. Szarewski A, Cuzick J, Nayagam M, Thin RN. A comparison of four cytological sampling techniques in a genitourinary medicine clinic. Genitourni Med 1990;66:439-43.
44. Szarewski A, Curran G, Edwards R, Cuzick J, Kocjan G, Bounds W, et al. Comparison of four cytologic sampling techniques in a large family planning center. Acta Cytol 1993;37:457-60.
45. Van Erp EJM, Blashek-Lut CHM, Arentz NPW, Trimbos JB. Performance of the Cytobrush in patients at risk for cervical pathology: does it add anything to the wooden spatula? Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 1988;6:456-60.
46. Van Erp EJM, Dersjant-Doorda MC, Arentz NPW, Stijnen Th, Trimbos JB. Should the Cytobrush be used in routine screening for cervical pathology? Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1989;30:139-44.
47. Wolfendale MR, Howe-Quest R, Usherwood M, Draper GJ. Controlled trial of a new cervical spatula. BMJ 1987;294:33-5.
48. Woodman CJB, Yates M, Williams DR, Ward K, Jordan J, Luesley D. A randomised controlled trial of two cervical spatulas. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991;98:21-4.
49. Szarewski A, Cuzick J, Singer A. Cervical smears following laser treatment. Acta Cytol 1991;35:76-8.
50. Bounds W, Grubb C, Metaxas N, Vessay M. A randomised comparative trial of the performance of the Ayre and the Armovical cervical spatula. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1976;83:981-7.
51. Metcalf KS, Sutton J, Moloney MD, Brown LA, Peel KR, Baines A. Which cervical sampler? A comparison of four methods. Cytopathology 1994;5:219-25.
52. Hicklin MD, Watts JC, Plott AE, Woods RJ, Coleman SA, Johnston WW, et al. Retrospective evaluation of gynecologic cytodiagnosis. Acta Cytol 1984;28:58-71.
53. Klinkhamer PJJM, Vooijs GP, de Haan AFJ. Intra-observer variability in the quality assessment of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1989;33:215-8.
54. Naujoks H, Strohmeier R, Bicker T, Interobserver variability in the cytological diagnosis of 1500 Papanicolaou stained cervical monolayer specimens. Pathol Res Pract 1990;186:150-3.
55. Vet de HCW, Knipschild PG, Schouten HJA, Kondstaal J, Kwee WS, Willebrand D, et al. Interobserver viariation in histo-pathological grading of cervical dysplasia. J Clin Epidemiol 1990;43:1395-8.
56. Brock CD, Ornstein SM, Litchfield L, McKeag DB. An improvement technique for Papanicolaou smear sampling in postmenopausal women. J Fam Pract 1986;22:498-500.
57. Luthy DA, Briggs RM, Buyco A, Eschenbach DA. Cervical smear. Obstet Gynecol 1987;51:713-7.
58. Wolfendale M. Cervical samples. Most important variable is probably the operator's skill. BMJ 1991;302:1554-5.
59. Sedlis A, Walters AT, Balin H, Hontz A, Lo Sciuto L. Evaluation of two simultaneously obtained cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1974;18:291-6.
60. Beibly J, Bourne R, Guillebaud J, Steels S. Paired cervical smears: a method of reducing the false-negative rate in population screening. Obstet Gynecol 1982;60:46-8.
61. Luthy DA, Briggs RM, Buyco A, Eschenbach DA. Cervical cytology. Increased sensitivity with a second cervical smear. Obstet Gynecol 1987;51:713-7.