Comparative evaluation of seven cell collection devices for cervical smears

Acta Cytologica

Volumn 43, Issue 6, 1999, Pages 1023-1026

  Kohlberger, Petra D ^a   Stani, Josefine ^b   Gitsch, Gerald ^a   Kieback, Dirk G ^a   Breitenecker, Gerhard ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

Cell collection devices; Cervical smears; Cervix neoplasms; Devices

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAMPLING; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR;

GOSSYPIUM HIRSUTUM; SPATULA;

EID: 0032707815     PISSN: 00015547     EISSN: 19382650     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1159/000331348     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Bar-Am A, Niv J, Segal A: Taking a satisfactory cervical cytologic smear: Is it really an easy procedure? Acta Cytol 1997; 41:1781-1784
2. Boon ME, de Graaff Guilloud JC, Rietveld WJ: Analysis of five sampling methods for the preparation of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1989;33:843-848
3. 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;35:64-68
4. Cancer of the cervix: Death by incompetence (edit). Lancet 1985;2:363-364
5. Doornewaard H, van de Seijp H, Woudt JM, van der Graaf Y, van den Tweel JG: Negative cervical smears before CIN3/carcinoma: Reevaluation with the PAPNET testing system. Acta Cytol 1997;41:74-78
6. Eisenberger D, Hernandez E, Tener T, Atkinson BF: Order of endocervical and ectocervical cytologic sampling and the quality of the Papanicolaou smear. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 90:755-758
7. Elias A, Linthorst G, Bekker B, Vooijs PG: The significance of endocervical cells in the diagnosis of epithelial changes. Acta Cytol 1983;27:225-229
8. Faraker CA: Partial rescreening of all negative smears: An improved method of quality assurance in laboratories undertaking cervical screening. Cytopathology 1993;4:47-50
9. Ferenczy A, Robitaille J, Franco E, Arseneau J, Richart RM, Wright TC: Conventional cervical cytologic smears vs. Thin-Prep smears: A paired comparison study on cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 1996;40:1136-1142
10. Harrison DD, Hernandez E, Dunton CJ: Endocervical brush versus cotton swab for obtaining cervical smears at a clinic. J Reprod Med 1993;38:285-288
11. Herbert A: Is cervical screening working?: A cytopathologist's view from the United Kingdom. Hum Pathol 1997;28: 120-126
12. Jones BA: Q-probes: Pap Smear Rescreening Data Analysis and Critique. Northfield, Illinois, College of American Pathologists, 1993, pp 93-103
13. Kivlahan C, Ingram E: Papanicolaou smears without endocervical cells: Are they inadequate? Acta Cytol 1986;30: 258-260
14. Koss LG: Cervical (Pap) smear: New directions. Cancer 1993; 71:1406-1412
15. Krieger P, Naryshkin S: Random rescreening of cytologic smears: A practical and effective component of quality assurance programs in both large and small cytology laboratories. Acta Cytol 1994;38:294-298
16. Lee JS, Wilhelm P, Kuan L, Ellison DG, Lei X, Oh S, Patten SF Jr: AutoPap system performance in screening for low prevalence and small cell abnormalities. Acta Cytol 1997;41:56-64
17. Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG, Corkill ME, McIntosh KM, Inhorn SL: Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:278-284
18. Lieu D: The Papanicolaou smear: Value and limitations. J Fam Pract 1996;42:391-399
19. Schumann JL, O'Connor DM, Covell JL, Greening SE: Pap smear collection devices: Technical, clinical, diagnostic, and legal considerations associated with their use. Diagn Cytopathol 1992;8:492-503
20. Selvaggi S: Spatula/cytobrush vs. spatula/cotton swab detection of cervical condylomatous lesions. J Reprod Med 1989;34:629-633
21. Sherman ME, Schiffman MH, Mango LJ, Kelly D, Acosta D, Cason Z, Elgert P, Zaleski S, Scott DR, Kurman RF, Stoler M, Lorincz AT: Evaluation of PAPNET testing as an ancillary tool to clarify the status of the "atypical smear." Mod Pathol 1997;10:564-571
22. Stenkvist B, Soderstrom J: Reasons for cevical cancer despite extensive screening. J Med Screen 1996;3:204-207
23. Wilkinson EJ: Pap smears and screening for cervical neoplasia. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1990;33:817-825