Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of automated and semi-automated cervical screening devices: A systematic review of the literature

New Zealand Medical Journal

Volumn 114, Issue 1135, 2001, Pages 311-313

  Broadstock, Marita ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; INSTRUMENTATION; MASS SCREENING; REVIEW; VAGINA SMEAR;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MASS SCREENING; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0035854814     PISSN: 00288446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. Solomon D, Davey D, Nozawa S, Syrjanen KJ. Future directions in cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 1998; 42: 1-4.
2. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, et al. Accuracy of the papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132: 810-9.
3. Broadstock M. Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of automated and semi-automated cervical screening devices: A systematic review. NZHTA Report 2000; 3(1), 1-130. Available from: http://nzhta.chmeds.ac.nz/
4. Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee. Review of automated and semi-automated cervical screening devices. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services, 1998. p. 1-86.
5. The Cochrane Methods Working Group on systematic review of screening and diagnostic tests: recommended methods. 1996. http://som.flinders.edn.au/fusa/cochrane/
6. McCrory DC, Matchar DB, Bastian L et al. Evaluation of cervical cytology: Evidence Report/Technology Assessment Number 5. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR); 1999.
7. Wilbur DC, Prey MU, Miller WM, et al. The AutoPap system for primary screening in cervical cytology. Comparing the results of a prospective, intended-use study with routine manual practice. Acta Cytol 1998; 42: 214-20.
8. Wilbur DC, Prey MU, Miller WM et al. Detection of high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and tumours using the autopap system. Cancer Cytopathol 1999; 87: 354-8.
9. Miller WC. Bias in discrepant analysis: when two wrongs don't make a right. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 219-31.
10. Wain GV. Automation in cervical cytology: whose cost and whose benefit? Med J Aust 1997; 167: 460-1.
11. Östör A. Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1993; 12: 186-92.
12. Miller A. Screening for cervical cancer. In: Rubin SC, Hoskins WJ, editors. Cervical cancer and preinvasive neoplasia. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Raven; 1996:
13. Sawaya GF, Grimes DA. New technologies in cervical cytology screening: a word of caution. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94: 307-10.
14. Biotek. The ThinPrep Pap Test. Auckland: Biotek; Undated.
15. McGoogan E. Automation and cervical cytopathology: an overview. In: Franco E, Monsonego J, editors. New developments in cervical cancer screening and prevention. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1997: 265-73.
16. Payne N, Chilcott J, McGoogan E. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening. Sheffield: School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; 2000. p1-100.