Cause and follow-up of inadequate cervical smears in the County of Funen;Årsag til og opfølgning af uegnede cervixcytologiske prøver i Fyns Amt

Ugeskrift for Laeger

Volumn 164, Issue 37, 2002, Pages 4280-4283

  Dahl, Maj Britt ^a   Ejersbo, Dorthe ^a   Hølund, Berit ^a  

^a NONE   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; INFLAMMATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; DENMARK; ECONOMICS; FOLLOW UP; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; STANDARD; STATISTICS; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VAGINA SMEAR;

ADULT; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; DENMARK; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0037048437     PISSN: 00415782     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. DeMay RM. Cytopathology of false negatives preceding cervical carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175: 1110-3.
2. McDonald IG, Daly J, Jelinek VM, Panetta F, Gutman JM. Opening Pandora's box: The unpredictability of reassurance by a normal test result. BMJ 1996; 313: 329-32.
3. Duvall E. Should the laboratory assess the sampling adequacy of cervical smears. Cytopathology 1997; 8: 409-16.
4. Dahl MB, Hølund B, Sørensen B, Ahrons S, Grinsted P, Poulsen EF. Opfølgning af ikkenegative cervixcytologiske prøver i fyns amt. Ugeskr Læger 1998; 160: 5798-801.
5. Burkman RT, Ward R, Balchandani K, Kini S. A continous quality improvement project to improve the quality of cervical Papanicolaou smears. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 84: 470-5.
6. Anbefalede retningslinier for danske patologiafdelinger vedrørende kvalitetssikring af screeningen mod livmoderhalskræft. Dansk Selskab for Patologisk Anatomi og Cytologi, 2000.
7. Davey DD, Nielsen ML, Rosenstock W, Kline TS. Terminology and specimen adequacy in cervicovaginal cytology. The College of American Pathologists interlaboratory comparison program experience. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1992; 116: 903-7.
8. McGoogan E, Colgan TJ, Ramzy I, Cochand-Priollet B, Davey DD, Grohs HK et al. Cell preparation methods and criteria for sample adequacy. IAC task force summary. Acta Cytol 1998; 42: 25-32.
9. Boon ME, Suurmeijer AJH. The Pap Smear. 2. Ed. Leiden, Netherlands: Coulomb Press Leyden, 1993.
10. Baker RM. Improving the adequacy of pap smears. Am Fam Physician 1989; 39:109-14.
11. Kristensen GB, Skyggebjerg KD, Hølund B, Holm K, Hansen MK. Analysis of cervical smears obtained within three years of the diagnosis of invasive cervical cancer. Acta Cytol 1991; 35: 47-50.
12. Ransdell JS, Davey DD, Zaleski S. Clinicopathologic correlation of the unsatisfactory Papanicolaou smear. Cancer 1997; 8: 139-43.
13. Lynge E, Arffmann E, Poll P, Andersen PK. Smear misclassification in a cervical cancer screening programme. Br J Cancer 1993; 68: 368-73.
14. Henry JA, Wadehra V. Influence of smear quality on the rate of detecting significant cervical cytologic abnormalities. Acta Cytol 1996; 40: 529-35.
15. Sen C, Brett MT. Outcome of women referred to colposcopy for persistently inadequate smears. Cytopathology 2000; 11: 3844.
16. Hollingworth J, Kotecha K, Dobbs SP, Shaw PA, Ireland D. Cervical disease in women referred to colposcopy following inadequate smears. Cytopathology 2000; 11: 45-52.
17. Martin-Hirsch P, Jarvis G, Kitchener H, Lilford R. Collection Devices for Obtaining Cervical Cytology Samples (Cochrane Review). I: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 1999. Oxford: Update Software.
18. Bar-Am A, Niv J, Segal A. Taking a satisfactory cervical cytologic smear. Is it really an easy procedure? Acta Cytol 1997; 41: 1781-4.
19. Boman F, Farre I, Farine MO, Leroy JL, Gauthier A, Querleu D et al. Pourquoi nous preferons la technique en couche mince aux frottis cervico-uterins conventionnels. Etude en double aveugle de 473 prelevements. Clin Exp Pathol 1999; 47: 81-7.
20. Jensen ML, Fuursted PB, Svanholm H. Sammenligning af monolagsprøver og konventionelle »smears« Ugeskr Læger 2001; 163: 1270-5.