A randomized trial of the sleeved cytobrush and the endocervical curette

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 101, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 426-430

  Boardman, Lori A ^a   Meinz, Heidi ^b   Steinhoff, Margaret M ^b   Heber, Walter W ^b   Blume, Jeffrey ^b  

^a WOMEN AND INFANTS HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CURETTAGE; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; HYSTERECTOMY; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAMPLING; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; UTERINE CERVIX CONIZATION;

EID: 0037335335     PISSN: 00297844     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0029-7844(02)02713-8     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Williams D.L., Dietrich C., McBroom J. Endocervical curettage when colposcopic examination is satisfactory and normal. Obstet Gynecol. 95:2000;801-803.
2. Weitzman G.A., Korhonen M.O., Reeves K.O., Irwin J.F., Carter T.S., Kaufman R.H. Endocervical brush cytology An alternative to endocervical curettage? J Reprod Med. 33:1988;677-683.
3. Andersen W., Frierson H., Barber S., Tabbarah S., Taylor P., Underwood P. Sensitivity and specificity of endocervical curettage and the endocervical brush for the evaluation of the endocervical canal. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 159:1988;702-707.
4. Oliveira M.M., Farias-Eisner R.P., Pitkin R.M. Endocervical sampling by Kevorkian curette or Pipelle aspiration device A randomized comparison . Am J Obstet Gynecol. 172:1995;1889-1894.
5. Holmstrom S.W., Burke J.J., Pare L., Smith D., Gallup D.G. A prospective randomized comparison of the endocervical brush and endocervical curette. Obstet Gynecol. 99:2002;4S.
6. Martin D., Umpierre S.A., Villamarzo G., Sanchez O., Sanchez J., Carrodeguas J., et al. Comparison of the endocervical brush and the endocervical curettage for the evaluation of the endocervical canal. P R Health Sci J. 14:1995;195-197.
7. Hoffman M.S., Sterghos S., Gordy L.W., Gunasekaran S., Cavanagh D. Evaluation of the cervical canal with the endocervical brush. Obstet Gynecol. 82:1993;573-577.
8. Gosewehr J.A., Julian T.M., O'Connell B.J. Improving the cytobrush as an aid in the evaluation of the abnormal Papanicolaou test. Obstet Gynecol. 78:1991;440-443.
9. Kurman R.J., Solomon D. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses Definitions, criteria and explanatory notes for terminology and specimen adequacy . 1994;Springer-Verlag, New York.
10. Lesisenring W., Pepe M.S., Longton G. A marginal regression modeling framework for evaluating medical diagnostic tests. Stat Med. 16:1997;1263-1281.
11. Cox J.T. ASCCP practice guidelines Endocervical curettage . J Lower Genital Tract Dis. 1:1997;251-256.
12. Klam S., Arseneau J., Mansour N., Franco E., Ferenczy A. Comparison of endocervical curettage and endocervical brushing. Obstet Gynecol. 96:2000;90-94.
13. Dunn T.S., Stevens-Simon C., Moeller L.D., Miekle S. Comparing endocervical curettage and endocervical brush at colposcopy. J Lower Genital Tract Dis. 4:2000;76-78.
14. Morgensen S.T., Bak M., Dueholm M., Frost L., Knoblauch N.O., Praest J., et al. Cytobrush and endocervical curettage in the diagnosis of dysplasia and malignancy of the uterine cervix. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 76:1997;69-73.
15. Tate K.M., Strickland J.L. A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the use of the endocervical brush after endocervical curettage. Obstet Gynecol. 90:1997;715-717.