Guidelines, standards and evidence in cervical screening: A personal view

Cytopathology

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 2-5

  Harvey, J A ^a  

^a LINCOLN COUNTY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER SCREENING; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; METAPLASIA; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SHORT SURVEY; STANDARD; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 0031909004     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2303.1998.00124.x     Document Type: Short Survey

References (19)

1. Austoker J, Davey C, Jansen C. Improving the Quality of the Written Information Sent to Women about Cervical Screening. Guidelines on the Presentation and Content of Letters and Leaflets. NHS CSP Publication No 5, April 1997.
2. Austoker J, Davey C, Jansen C. Improving the Quality of the Written Information Sent to Women about Cervical Screening. Evidence-Based Criteria for the Content and Letters and Leaflets. Evaluation of the content of Current Letters and Leaflets. NHS CSP Publication No 6, April 1997.
3. Pritchard J, ed. Quality Assurance Guidelines for the Cervical Screening Programme. Report of a Working Party Convened by the NHS Cervical Screening Programme. NHS CSP Publication No 3, January 1996.
4. Buntinx F, Schouten HJ, Knottnerus JA, Crebolder HF, Essed GG. Interobserver variation in the assessment of the sampling quality of cervical smears. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 367-70.
5. O'Sullivan JP, Ismail SM, Barnes WS et al. Inter-and intra-observer variation in the reporting of cervical smears: specialist cytopathologists versus histopathologists. Cytopathology 1996; 7: 78-89.
6. Mitchell H, Medley G. Influence of endocervical status on the cytologic prediction of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Acta Cytologica 1992; 36: 875-80.
7. Woodman CB, Williams D, Yates M et al. Indicators of effective cytological sampling of the uterine cervix. Lancet 1989; ii: 88-90.
8. Kristensen GB, Skyggebjerg K-D, Holund B, Holm K, Hansen MK. Analysis of cervical smears obtained within three years of the diagnosis of invasive cervical cancer. Acta Cytologica 1991; 35: 47-50.
9. Beeby AR, Wadhera V, Keating PJ, Wagstaff TI. A retrospective analysis of 94 patients with CIN and false negative cervical smears taken at colposcopy. Cytopathology 1993; 4: 331-7.
10. Ronco G, Montanari G, Aimone V et al. Estimating the sensitivity of cervical cytology: errors of interpretation and test limitations. Cytopathology 1996; 7: 151-8.
11. Mitchell H, Medley G. Cellular differences between true negative and false negative Papanicolaou smears. Cytopathology 1993; 4: 285-90.
12. Morrell ND, Taylor JR, Snyder RN et al. False-negative cytology rates in patients in whom invasive cervical cancer subsequently developed. Obstet Gynecol 1982; 60: 41-5.
13. Elias A, Linthorst G, Bekker B, Vooijs PG. The significance of endocervical cells in the diagnosis of cervical epithelial changes. Acta Cytologica 1983; 27: 225-9.
14. Vooijs PG, Elias A, Van der Graaf Y, Veling SHJ. Relationship between the diagnosis of epithelial abnormalities and the composition of cervical smears. Acta Cytologica 1985; 29: 323-8.
15. Mitchell H, Medley G. Longitudinal study of women with negative cervical smears according to endocervical status. Lancet 1991; 337: 265-7.
16. Mitchell H, Giles GG. Cancer diagnosis after a report of negative cervical cytology. Med J Aust 1996; 164: 270-3.
17. Greening SE. The adequate Papanicolaou smear revisited. Diagnost Cytopathol 1985; 1: 55-8.
18. Greenhalgh T. The Medline database. BMJ 1997; 315: 180-3.
19. Bailar JC. The promise and problems of meta-analysis. N Eng J Med 1997; 337: 559-61.