The effect of vaginal speculum lubrication on the rate of unsatisfactory cervical cytology diagnosis

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 100, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 889-892

  Amies, Anne‐Marie E ^a   Miller, Leslie ^a   Lee, Shu‐Kuang ^a   Koutsky, Laura ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LUBRICATING AGENT; WATER;

ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; LUBRICATION; MULTICENTER STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SQUAMOUS CELL; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; VAGINA;

FEMALE; GELS; HUMANS; LUBRICATION; SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS; VAGINA; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0036855063     PISSN: 00297844     EISSN: 1873233X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(02)02348-7     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Eddy DM. Screening for cervical cancer. Ann Intern Med 1990;113:214-26.
2. Janerich DT, Hadjimichael O, Schwartz PE, Lowell DM, Meigs JW, Merino MJ, et al. The screening histories of women with invasive cervical cancer, Connecticut. Am J Public Health 1995;85:791-4.
3. Kahn JA, Chiou V, Allen JD, Goodman E, Perlman SE, Emans SJ. Beliefs about Papanicolaou smear and compliance with Papanicolaou smear follow-up in adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1999;153:1046-54.
4. Brekkan E, Ehrnebo M, Malmstrom PU, Norlen BJ, Wirbrant A. A controlled study of low and high volume anesthetic jelly as a lubricant and pain reliever during cystoscopy. J Urol 1991;146:24-7.
5. Goldfischer ER, Cromie WJ, Karrison TG, Naskiewicz L, Gerber GS. Randomized, prospective, double-blind study of the effects on pain perception of lidocaine jelly versus plain lubricant during outpatient rigid cystoscopy. J Urol 1997;157:90-4.
6. Miller L, Jensen MP, Stenchever MA. A double-blind randomized comparison of lidocaine and saline for cervical anesthesia. Obstet Gynecol 1996;87:600-4.
7. Kawada C. Gynecologic history, examination, and diagnostic procedures. In: Decherney AH, Pernol ML, eds. Current obstetric and gynecologic diagnosis and treatment. 8th ed. East Norwalk, Connecticut: Appleton & Lange, 1994:613-32.
8. Cunningham FG, Gant NF, Leveno KJ, Gilstrap LC III, Hauth JC, Wenstrom KD. Williams obstetrics. 21st ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001:227.
9. Stenchever MA. History, physical examination, and preventive health care. In: Stenchever MA, Droegemueller W, Herbst AL, Mishell DR Jr, eds. Comprehensive gynecology. 4th ed. St. Louis: Mosby, 2001:144.
10. Keye WR Jr. Gynecologic history, examination and diagnostic procedures. In: Scott JR, DiSaia PJ, Hammond CB, Spellacy WN, eds. Danforth's obstetrics and gynecology. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1997:604.
11. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Cervical cytology: Evaluation and management of abnormalities. ACOG technical bulletin no. 183. Washington: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1993.
12. Casselman CW, Crutaner RA, Jadsingh IH. Use of water-soluble gel in obtaining the cervical cytologic smear. Acta Cytol 1997;41:1861-2.
13. Kurman RJ, Solomon D. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: Definitions, criteria, and explanatory notes for terminology and specimen adequacy. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994:7-8.
14. Vooijs GP, van der Graaf Y, Elias AG. Cellular composition of cervical smears in relation to the day of the menstrual cycle and the method of contraception. Acta Cytol 1987;31:417-26.
15. Waddell CA. The influence of the cervix on smear quality. I: Atrophy. An audit of cervical smears taken post-colposcopic management of intraepithelial neoplasia. Cytopathology 1997;8:274-81.
16. Taylor PT, Andersen WA, Barber SR, Covell JL, Smith EB, Underwood PB. The screening Papanicolaou smear: Contribution of the endocervical brush. Obstet Gynecol 1987;70:734-7.
17. Wilson JD, French R, Branch T, Sutton J. Inadequate cervical cytology: The need to audit individual smear takers' inadequate rates. Cytopathology 1999;10:107-11.
18. Woodman CBJ, Yates M, Ward K, Williams D, Tomlinson K, Luesley D. Indicators of effective cytological sampling of the uterine cervix. Lancet 1989;2:88-90.
19. Kane BR, Berger MS, Lisney M. Pap smear adequacy: The role of clinician experience. Fam Med 1997;29:315-7.
20. Vooijs GP, Elias A, van der Graaf Y, Poelen-van de Berg M. The influence of sample takers on the cellular composition of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1986;30:251-7.
21. Ciatto S, Cariaggi MP, Minuti AP, Confortini M, Palli D, Pas L, et al. Interlaboratory reproducibility in reporting inadequate cervical smears: A multicentre multinational study. Cytopathology 1996;7:386-90.