Cervical smears taken by practice assistants are of lower quality than smears taken by general practitioners but almost as good as the nationwide mean;Cervixuitstrijkjes afgenomen door doktersassistentes van mindere kwaliteiit dan uitstrijkjes afgenomen door huisartsen, maar bijna even goed als het landelijk gemiddelde

Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde

Volumn 144, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 74-77

  Voordijk Van Der Ben, M H ^a   Buntinx, F ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HUMAN; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT; QUALITY CONTROL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

FAMILY PRACTICE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; NETHERLANDS; PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; QUALITY INDICATORS, HEALTH CARE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0034620273     PISSN: 00282162     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Haan J de. De doktersassistente. Delegeren van taken in cen huisartsenpraktijk. Lelystad: Meditekst; 1986.
2. Buntinx F, Knottnerus JA, Crebolder HFJM, Essed GG, Schouten H. Relation between quality of cervical smears and probability of abnormal results. BMJ 1992;304:1224.
3. Vooijs GP. Significance of cellular composition of smears for the reliability of cytological diagnosis. In: Goerttler K, Fiechler G, Witte S, editors. New frontiers in cytology. Berlijn: Springer; 1988. p. 412-20.
4. Mauney M, Eide D, Sotham J. Rates of condyloma and dysplasia in Papanicolaou smears with and without endocervical cells. Diagn Cythopathol 1990;6:18-21.
5. Mitchell H, Medley G. Longitudinal study of women with negative cervical smears according to endocervical status. Lancet 1991;337: 265-7.
6. Evaluatiecommissie inzake de vroege opsporing van cervixcarcinoom (EVAC). Eindrapportage, Leiden: EVAC; 1988.
7. Mitchell H. Pap smears collected by nurse practitioners: a comparison with smears collected by medical practitioners. Oncol Nurs Forum 1993;20:807-10.
8. Thommasen H, Lenci B, Brake I, Anderson G. Cervical cancer screening performed by a nurse. Evaluation in family practice. Can Fam Physician 1996;42:2179-83.
9. Grootenhuis AT, Grootenhuis-Vuyk C, Brouwer APhW. Wie strijkt in de praktijk? Huisarts Wet 1989;32:168-9.
10. Bosch WJHM van den, Lörx M, Sas-Repkes A van. Praktijk-assistente en preventieve taken. Extra mogelijkheden bij het bevolkingsonderzoek naar baarmoederhalskanker. Huisarts Wet 1991;34: 488-90.
11. Kant AC, Palm BTHM, Dona DJS, Makkus AFC, Vooijs GP, Weel C van. Cellular composition of cervical smears taken by general practitioners. Int J Qual Health Care 1995;7:11-6.
12. Kant AC, Palm BTHM. General practice-based call system for cervical cancer screening [proefschrift]. Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen; 1997.
13. Dean AG, Dean JA, Coulombius D, Brendel KA, Smith DC, Burton AH, et al. Epi Info, Version 6: a word processing, database, and statistics program for epidemiology on microcomputers. Atlanta: Center for Disease Control; 1994.
14. Giard RWM, Hermans J, Doornewaard H. Landelijke resultaten van cervixcytologische diagnostiek in 1992; de screening kan doelmatiger. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1994;138:1325-30.
15. Spee MHJM, Gastel J van. Evaluatie van de organisatie van het bevolkingsonderzoek naar baarmoederhalskanker in Noord-Limburg. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1992;136:2327-31.
16. Buntinx F, Brouwers M. Relation between sampling device and detection of abnormality in cervical smears: a meta-analysis of randomised and quasi-randomised studies. BMJ 1996;313:1285-90.
17. Vooijs GP, Elias A, Graaf Y van der, Poelen-van de Berg M. The influence of sample takers on the cellular composition of the cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1986;30:251-7.