Technical aspect of ThinPrep

Singapore Medical Journal

Volumn 41, Issue 12, 2000, Pages 575-578

  Song, L H ^a   Goh, E S T ^a   Phang, L C ^a   Poh, Wee Teng ^a   Tay, S K ^a  

^a SINGAPORE GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Cervical smears; Suboptimal; Technical problems; ThinPrep

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CULTURE TECHNIQUE; FEMALE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SINGAPORE; VAGINA SMEAR;

CULTURE TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SINGAPORE; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0034570249     PISSN: 00375675     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Operator's Manual. ThinPrep processor. Msrlborough, Massachusetts. Cytyc Corporation 1992.
2. Googan E. Mc, Reith A. Would monolayer provide more representative samples and improved preparation for cervical screening? Review and evaluation of system available. Acta Cytol 1996; 40:107-9.
3. Fisher DF, Toddy SM. Nongynecologic Cytology Utilizing the ThinPrep Processor. Acta Cytol 1996; 40:669-75.
4. Ferenezy A, Robitaille J, Franco E, Arseneau J, Richart RM, Wright TC. Conventional Cervical Cytology vs. ThinPrep smears: Paired Comparison Study on Cervical Cytology. Acta Cytol 1996; 40:1136-42.
5. Bur M, Knowles K, Pekow P, Corral O, Donovan J. Comparison of ThinPrep Preparations with Conventional Cervicovaginal Smears. Acta Cytol 1995; 39:631-42.
6. Leung CS, Chiu B, Bell V. Comparison of ThinPrep and Conventional Preparations. Nongynecologic Cytology Evaluation. Diagnostic Cytopathology 1997; 16:368-71.
7. Papillo JL, Zarka MA, St. John TL. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap Test In Clinical Practice. A Seven-month, 16,314-Case Experience in Northern Vermont. Acta Cytol 1998; 1:203-8.
8. Roberts JM, Gurley AM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch R, Laverty C. Evaluation of the ThinPrep test as an adjunct to the conventional Pap Smear. Research 1997; 167:466-9.
9. Takahashi M, Kimura M, Akagi A, Naitoh M. AutoCyte SCREEN Interactive Automated Primary Cytology Screening System. A Preliminary Evaluation. Acta Cytol 1998; 42:185-8.
10. Coleman DV. Automation in Cytology: a review of the recent developments in the automated analysis of cervical smears. Journal of Cellular Pathology 1996; 1:3-12.
11. Williamson SLH, Hair T and Wadehra V. The effects of different sampling techniques on smear quality and the diagnosis of cytological abnormalities in cervical screening. Cytopathology 1997; 8:188-95.
12. Wadehra V and Sankar K. Quality grading for cervical smears. Cytopathology, 1996; 7:310-9.
13. Dupree WB, Suprun HZ, Beckwith DG, Shane JJ, Lucente V. The Promise and Risk of a New Technology: the Lehigh Valley Hospital's Experience with Liquid-Based Cervical Cytology. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 1998; 84/4:202-7.
14. Austine RM. Implementing Liquid-Based Gynecologic Cytology: Balancing Marketing, Financial, and Scientific Issues. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 1998; 84/4:193-6.
15. Kurman RJ, Solomon D. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical/ Vaginal Cytological Diagnoses: Definitions, Criteria, and Explanatory Notes for Terminology and Specimen Adequacy. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994; 5-6.