The influence of the cervix on smear quality. I: Atrophy. An audit of cervical smears taken post-colposcopic management of intraepithelial neoplasia

Cytopathology

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 274-281

  Waddell, C A ^a  

^a BIRMINGHAM WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Adequacy; Atrophy; Cervical smear quality; Sampling

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COLPOSCOPY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

EID: 0030742668     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2303.1997.8382083.x     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Department of Health. Summary information from form KC61. Statistical Bulletin 1995/26, December 1996. London: Government Statistical Service, 1996: Table 12, p. 17.
2. Henry JA, Wadehra V. Influence of smear quality on the rate of detecting significant cervical cytological abnormalities. Acta Cytol 1996; 40: 529-35.
3. Slater DN, Milner PC, Radley H. Audit of deaths from cervical cancer: proposal for an essential component of the national screening programme. J Clin Pathol 1994; 47: 27-28.
4. Robertson JH, Woodend B. Negative cytology preceding cervical cancer: causes and prevention. J Clin Pathol 1993; 46: 700-2.
5. Mitchell H, Medley G, Giles G. Cervical cancers diagnosed after negative results on cervical cytology: perspective in the 1980s. Br Med J 1990; 300: 1622-6.
6. Attwood ME, Woodman CBJ, Luesley D, Jordan JA. Previous cytology in patients with invasive carcinoma of the cervix. Acta Cytol 1985; 29: 108-10.
7. Nielsen ML, Davey DD, Kline TS. Specimen adequacy evaluation in gynecologic cytopathology: current laboratory practice in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory comparison program and tentative guidelines for future practice. Diagn Cytophathol 1993; 9: 394-403.
8. Wolfendale M. Cervical samplers: most important variable is probably the operator's skill. Br Med J 1991; 302: 1554-5.
9. Vooijs PG, Elias A, van der Graaf Y, Poelen-van de Berg M. The influence of the sample takers on the cellular composition of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1986; 30: 251-7.
10. Wadehra V, Sankar K. Quality grading for cervical smears. Cytopathology 1996; 7: 301-9.
11. Waddell CA, Rollason TP, Amarilli JM, Cullimore J, McConkey C. The Cervex: an ectocervical brush sampler. Cytopathology 1990; 1: 171-81.
12. Laverty CR, Farnsworth A, Thurle JC, Bowditch RC. The importance of the cell sample in cervical cytology: a controlled trial of a new sampling device. Med J Aust 1989; 150: 433-6.
13. Rubio CA. The false negative smear II: The trapping effect of collecting instruments. Obstet Gynecol 1977; 49: 576-80.
14. Koss LG. The Papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection. A triumph and a tragedy. JAMA 1989; 261: 737-43.
15. Rubio CA. False negatives in cervical cytology: can they be avoided? Acta Cytol 1981; 25: 199-202.
16. Husain OAN. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Study Group of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, October 1981. London: RCOG, 1982: 111-32.
17. Koss LG. In: Diagnostic Cytology and its Histopathologic Bases. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott Co., 1992: 278-80.
18. Frost JK. Diagnostic accuracy of 'cervical smears'. Obstet Gynecol Surrey 1969; 24: 893-908.