Use of the cytobrush for papanicolaou smear screens in pregnant women

Journal of Nurse-Midwifery

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 211-217

  Foster, Joyce C ^a   Smith, Helen L ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

^b Nurse managed Center and Freestanding Birth Center ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MULTICENTER STUDY; PREGNANCY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; VAGINA SMEAR;

CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMANS; PREGNANCY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0030140495     PISSN: 00912182     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/0091-2182(96)00013-4     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Helderman G, Graham L, Cannon D, Waters K, Fellers K. Comparing two sampling techniques for endocervical cell recovery on Papanicolaou smears. Nurse Pract 1990; 15:30-2.
2. Boon ME, Alon-van Kordelar JJM, Rietveld-Scheffers PEM. Consequences of the introduction of combined spatula and Cytobrush sampling for cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 1986;30:264-70.
3. Boon ME, de Graaff Guilloud JC, Rietveld WJ. Analysis of five methods for the preparation of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1989;33:843-8.
4. 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.
5. Chang AR. An evaluation of cervical smears consisting of spatula and Cytobrush samples. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1989;29:436-8.
6. Kristensen GB, Holund B, Grinste P. Efficacy of the Cytobrush versus the cotton swab in the collection of endocervical cells. Acta Cytol 1989;33:849-51.
7. Neinstein LS, Rabinovitz S, Recalde A. Comparison of Cytobrush with cotton swab for endocervical cytologie sampling. J Adolesc Health Care 1989;10:305-7.
8. Rammou-Kinia R, Anagnostopoulou I, Gomousa M. Comparison of spatula and nonspatula methods for cervical sampling. Acta Cytol 1991;35:69-75.
9. Trimbos JB, Arentz NP. The efficiency of the Cytobrush versus the cotton swab in the collection of endocervical cells in cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1986;30:261-3.
10. Dotters DJ, Carney CN, Droegemueller W. Nylon brush improves collection of cervical cytological specimens. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 159:814-9.
11. Murata PJ, Johnson RA, McNicoll KE. Controlled evaluation of implementing the Cytobrush technique to improve Papanicolaou smear quality. Obstet Gynecol 1990;75:690-5.
12. Taylor PT, Anderson WA, Barber SR, Covell JL, Smith EB, Underwood PB. The screening Papanicolaou smear: contribution of the endocervical brush. Obstet Gynecol 1987;70:734-7.
13. 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.
14. McCord ML, Stovall TG, Meric JL, Summit! RL, Coleman SA. Cervical cytology: a randomized comparison of four sampling methods. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;166:1772-9.
15. Rivlin ME, Woodliff JM, Bowlin RB, Moore JL, Martin RW, Grossman JH, Morrison JC. Comparison of Cytobrush and cotton swab for Papanicolaou smears in pregnancy. J Reprod Med 1993;38:147-50.
16. Bauman BJ. Use of a cervical brush for Papanicolaou smear collection: a meta-analysis. J Nurse Midwifery 1993;38:267-75.
17. Paraiso MFR, Brady K, Helmchen R, Roat TW. Evaluation of the endocervical Cytobrush and Cervex-brush in pregnant women. Obstet Gynecol 1994;84:539-43.
18. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981:33-49.
19. Cunningham FG, MacDonald PC, Gant NF, Leveno KJ, Gilstrap LC. Williams obstetrics. 19th ed. Norwalk: Appleton & Lange, 1993:64, 84, 212, 662, 664.