Additional collection devices used in conjunction with the SurePath Liquid-based Pap Test broom device do not enhance diagnostic utility

BMC Women's Health

Volumn 4, Issue , 2004, Pages

  Day, Sarah J ^a   O'Shaughnessy, Darla L ^a   O'Connor, Jason C ^a   Freund, Gregory G ^a  

^a CARLE CLINIC ASSOCIATION   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYTICAL EQUIPMENT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTOPATHOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGICAL EXAMINATION; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; INFORMED CONSENT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PREDICTION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SAMPLE;

EID: 13144288187     PISSN: 14726874     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6874-4-6     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Garite TJ, Feldman MJ: An evaluation of cytologic sampling techniques. A comparative study. Acta Cytol 1978, 22: 3-85.
2. Boon ME, Alons-van Kordelaar JJ, Rietveld-Scheffers PE: Consequences of the introduction of combined spatula and Cytobrush sampling for cervical cytology. Improvements in smear quality and detection rates. Acta Cytol 1986, 30:264-270.
3. Rome RM, Chanen W, Ostor AG: Preclinical cancer of the cervix: diagnostic pitfalls. Gynecol Oncol 1985, 22: 02-312.
4. Selvaggi SM, Guidos BJ: Specimen adequacy and the ThinPrep Pap Test: The endocervical component. Diagn Cytopathol 2000, 23:23-26.
5. Royer MC, Smith KL: Comparison of AutoCyte PREP Adequacy to the conventional Pap Smear [abstract]. Acta Cytol 2001, 45:827.
6. Day SJ, Deszo EL, Freund GG: Dual Sampling of the Endocervix and itsImpact on AutoCyte Prep Endocervical Adequacy. Am J Clin Pathol 2002, 118:41-46.
7. The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. Acta Cytol 1993, 37:115-124.
8. The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: developed and approved at the National Cancer Institute workshop in Bethesda, MD, December 12-13, 1988. Diagn Cytopathol 1989, 5:331-334.
9. The 1988 Bethsda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytological diagnoses. National Cancer Institute Workshop. JAMA 1989, 262:931-4.
10. http://ir.thomsonfn.com/InvestorRelations/ PubNewsStory.aspx?partner=5100&storyId=115055
11. Boon ME, de Graaff Guilloud JC, Rietveld WJ: Analysis of five sampling methods for preparation of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1989, 33:843-848.
12. Szarewski A, Cuzick J, Singer A: Cervical smears following laser treatment comparison of Cervix brush versus cytobrush-Ayre spatula sampling. 1991, 35:76-78.
13. McCord ML, Stovall TG, Meric JL, Summitt RL, Coleman SA: Cervical cytology: A randomized comparison of four sampling methods. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992, 166:1772-1779.
14. Cannon JM, Blythe JG: Comparison of the Cytobrush Plus plastic spatula with the Cervix Brush for obtaining endocervical cells. Obstet Gynecol 1993, 82:569-572.
15. Germain M, Heaton R, Erickson D, Henry M, Nash J, O'Connor D: A comparison of the three most common Papanicolaou smear collection techniques. Obstet Gynecol 1994, 84:168-173.
16. Risberg B, Andersson A, Zetterberg C, Nordin B. Cervix-Brush vs: spatula and cytobrush a cytohistologic evaluation. J Reprod Med 1997, 42:405-408.
17. Neinstein LS, Church J, Akiyoshi T: Comparison of cytobrush with Cervex-Brush for endocervical cytologic sampling. J Adolesc Health 1992, 13:520-523.
18. Buntinx F, Brouwers M: Relation between sampling device and detection of abnormality in cervical smears: a meta-analysis of randomised and quasi-randomised studies. BMJ 1996, 313: 285-1290.