The effects of different sampling techniques on smear quality and the diagnosis of cytological abnormalities in cervical screening

Cytopathology

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 188-195

  Williamson, S L H ^a   Hair, T ^b   Wadehra, V ^b  

^a ROYAL VICTORIA INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

^b NEWCASTLE GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; Cervical screening; Cervical smears; Sampling techniques

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; FEMALE; GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TECHNIQUE; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

EID: 0030912229     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2303.1997.4675046.x     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Huchinson M, Fertitta L, Goldbaum B, Hamza M, Vanerian S. Cervex-Brush and Cytobrush: comparison of their ability to sample abnormal cells for cervical smears. J Reprod Med 1991; 36: 581-6.
2. Laverty CR, Farnsworth A, Thurloe JK, Bowditch RC. The importance of the cell sample in cervical cytology: a controlled trail of a new sampling device. Med J Aust 1989; 150: 432-6.
3. McCord ML, Stovall TG, Meric JL, Summitt RL, Coleman SA. Cervical cytology: a randomized comparison of four sampling methods. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 166: 1772-9.
4. Doornewaard H, van der Graaf Y. Contribution of the cytobrush to determining cellular composition of cervical smears. J Clin Pathol 1990; 43: 393-6.
5. Garite TJ, Feldman MJ. An evaluation of cytologic sampling techniques: a comparative survey. Acta Cytol 1978; 22: 83-85.
6. British Society for Clinical Cytology. Cell content of cervical smears Cytopathology 1990; 1: 129-32.
7. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. Acta Cytol 1993; 37: 115-24.
8. Vooijs GP. Endocervical brush device. Lancet 1989; 1: 784.
9. Woodman CBJ, Williams D, Yates M, Tomlinson K, Ward K, Luesley D. Indicators of effective cytological sampling of the uterine cervix. Lancet 1989; 1: 88-89.
10. Spurrett B, Ayer B, Pacey NF. The inadequacies of instruments used for cervical screening. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 29: 44-46.
11. Henry JA, Wadehra V. The influence of smear quality on the rate of detection of significant cervical cytological abnormalities. Acta Cytol 1996; 40: 529-35.
12. Boon ME, Alons-van Kordelaar JJM, Rietveld-Scheffers PEM. Consequences of the introduction of combined spatula and cytobrush sampling for cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 1986; 30: 264-70.
13. Boon ME, de Graaff Guilloud JC, Rietveld WJ. Analysis of five methods for the preparation of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1989; 33: 843-8.
14. Buntinx F, Boon ME, Beck S, Knottnerus JA, Essed GG. Comparison of cytobrush sampling and combined cytobrush-spatula sampling of the uterine cervix. Acta Cytol 1991; 35: 64-67.
15. Waddell CA, Rollason TP, Amarill JM, Cullimore J, McConkey CC. The Cervex: an ectocervical brush sampler. Cytopathology 1990; 1: 171-81.