Automation of the Papanicolaou smear: A technology assessment perspective

Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

Volumn 121, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 282-286

  Linder, James ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATION; CANCER SCREENING; CONFERENCE PAPER; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PEER REVIEW; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

EID: 0030995217     PISSN: 00039985     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (30)

1. Wied GL, Bartels PH, Bibbo M, et al. Computer-assisted quality assurance. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:1-3.
2. Grohs HK, Husain OAN, eds. Automated Cervical Cancer Screening. New York, NY: Igaku-Shoin Medical Publishers Inc; 1994.
3. Hutchinson ML, Zahniser DK. Cervical cytology automation, in: Marchevsky AM, Bartels PH, eds. Image Analysis. New York, NY: Raven Press; 1994:309-334.
4. Buckner SB. Legislation and regulations governing the field of cytology: review and update. Cytopathology Annual. 1992:199-213.
5. Austin RM. Can regulatory proficiency testing by the cytobureaucracy decrease both false negatives and cervical cancer deaths? Diagn Cytopathol. 1994a;11:109-112.
6. Davey DD, Nielsen ML, Frable WH, et al. Improving accuracy in gynecologic cytology: results of the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1993;117:1193-1198.
7. Dehner LP. Cervicovaginal cytology, false-negative results, and standards of practice. Am J Clin Pathol. 1993;99:45-47.
8. Ashfaq R, Liang Y, Saboorian MH. Evaluation of Papnet™ system for rescreening of negative cervical smears. Diagn Cytopathol. 1995;13:31-36.
9. Slagel DD, Zaleski S, Cohen MB. Efficacy of automated cervical cytology screening. Diagn Cytopathol. 1995;13:26-30.
10. Mango LJ. Neuromedical Systems, Inc. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:53-59.
11. Patten SF, Lee JSJ, Nelson AC. NeoPath, Inc. NeoPath AutoPap 300 automated pap screener system. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:45-52.
12. Wilbur DC, Bonfiglio TA, Rutkowski MA, et al. Biopsy data confirm the sensitivity of the NeoPath AutoPap 300 QC system to cervical cytologic abnormalities. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:127-132.
13. Colgan TJ, Patten SF, Lee JSJ. A clinical trial of the AutoPap 300 QC System for quality control (QC) of cervico-vaginal cytology in the clinical laboratory. Acta Cytol. 1995;39:1191-1198.
14. Kamentsky LA, Gershman RJ, Kamentsky LD, Pomeroy BM, Weissman ML. CompuCyte Corporation Pathfinder system: computerizing the microscope to improve cytology quality assurance. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:31-36.
15. Grohs DH, Gombrich PP, Domanik RA. AccuMed International, Inc, meeting the challenges in cervical cancer screening: the AcCell Series 2000 automated slide handling and data management system. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:26-30.
16. PLUS: a workstation for screening, supervision, reviewing, quality assurance and education in cytopathology. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:90-96.
17. Hutchinson ML, Agarwal P, Denault T, Berger B, Cibas ES. A new look at cervical cytology: ThinPrep multicenter trial results. Acta Cytol. 1992;36:499-504.
18. Wilbur DC, Dubeshter B, Angel C, Atkison KM. Use of thin-layer preparations for gynecologic smears with emphasis on the cytomorphology of high-grade intraepithelial lesions and carcinomas. Diagn Cytopathol. 1996;14:201-211.
19. Linder J, Zahniser D. The ThinPrep Pap test - a review of clinical studies. Acta Cytol. 1997;41:1-10.
20. Davidson SN. Technological cancer: its causes and treatment. Technology, Medicine and Health, part 4. Healthcare Forum J. March/April 1995.
21. Berkowitz DA. Overhauling technology decision making to fit era of managed care. Strategies Healthcare Excellence. 1994;7:7-12.
22. Franklin G. Basic concepts and fundamental issues in technology assessment. Intensive Care Med. 1993;19:117-121.
23. Power EJ, Tunis SR, Wagner JL. Technology assessment and public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 1994;15:561-579.
24. Hendee WR. Technology assessment: the contribution of professional organizations, AJR. 1990;154:647-651.
25. Raab SS, Bottles K, Cohen MB. Technology assessment in anatomic pathology: an illustration of test evaluation using fine-needle aspiration biopsy. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996;118:1173-1180.
26. Hutchinson ML. Assessing the costs and benefits of alternative rescreening strategies. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:4-8.
27. Greening SE, Somrak TM. Medicolegal issues in cytology: legal principles and liability outlook. Cytopathology Annual. 1994:65.-81.
28. Birdsong GG. Automated rescreening of Papanicolaou smears: what are the implications? Diagn Cytopathol 1995;13:283-286.
29. Bedrossian CWM. Challenges and innovations in cytopathology. Diagn Cytopathol. 1996;13:371-372.
30. Linder J. They'll tell you who you are . . . Diagn Cytopathol. 1996;15:91-92.