Outcome of women with inadequate cervical smears followed up for five years

Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 56, Issue 8, 2003, Pages 592-595

  Hock, Y L ^a   Ramaiah, S ^b   Wall, E S ^a   Harris, A M ^a   Marston, L ^a   Marshall, J ^a   Kendall, K ^a   Teale, A ^b  

^a WALSALL HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^b Walsall Primary Care Trust   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGNOSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; TUMOR BIOPSY; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

ADULT; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CERVIX UTERI; COLPOSCOPY; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; RISK; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TIME; TREATMENT FAILURE; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0043092274     PISSN: 00219746     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jcp.56.8.592     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Patrick J, ed. Cervical Screening Programme: review 1998. A national priority. Sheffield: NHSCSP, 1998.
2. Department of Health. Department of Health Statistical Bulletin, Cervical Screening Programme, England: 1995-96. London: Department of Health, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000.
3. Office for National Statistics. Estimates of newly diagnosed cases of cancer England and Wales 1993-97. London: Office for National Statistics. 1998 ONS Monitor MB1 98/2.
4. Sasieni P, Cuzick J, Farmery E. Accelerated decline in cervical cancer mortality in England and Wales. Lancet 1995;346:1566-7.
5. Herbert A. Achievable standards. Benchmarks for reporting and criteria for evaluation cervical cytopathology. Sheffield: NHSCSP, 1995.
6. Johnson J, Patrick J. Achievable standards. Benchmarks for reporting and criteria for evaluation cervical cytopathology, 2nd ed. Sheffield: NHSCSP, 2000.
7. Sen C, Brett MT. Outcome of women referred to colposcopy for persistently inadequate smears. Cytopathology 2000;11:38-44.
8. Hollingworth J, Koteeha K, Dobbs SP, et al. Cervical disease in women referred to colposcopy following inadequate smears. Cytopathology 2000;11:45-52.
9. Henry JA, Wadehra V. The influence of smear quality on the rate of detection of significant cervical cytological abnormalities. Acta Cytol 1996;40:529-35.
10. Williamson SLM, Hair T, Wadehra V. The effects of different sampling techniques on smear quality and the diagnosis of cytological abnormalities in cervical screening. Cytopathology 1997;8:188-95.
11. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of liquid-based cytology for cervical screening. Technology appraisal guidance No. 5. London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2000.
12. Herbert A, Johnson T. Personal view. Is it reality or an illusion that liquid-based cytology is better than conventional cervical smears? Cytopathology 2001;12:383-9.
13. Ciatto S, Carvogop MP, Minuti AP, et al. Interlaboratory reproducibility in reporting inadequate cervical smears - a multi-centre multinational study. Cytopathology 1996;7:386-90.
14. Broadstock M. New Zealand health technology assessment (NZHTA) report, Vol. 3, No. 1: Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of automated and semi-automated cervical screening devices. 2000 (available from http://nzhta.chmeds.ac.uk).
15. Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee. Review of automated and semi-automated cervical screening devices. Canberra: Development of Health and Family Services, 1998.