Cervical screening programmes: Can automation help? Evidence from systematic reviews, an economic analysis and a simulation modelling exercise applied to the UK

Health Technology Assessment

Volumn 9, Issue 13, 2005, Pages

  Willis, B H ^a   Barton, P ^a   Pearmain, P ^a   Bryan, S ^a   Hyde, C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTOANALYSIS; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; COST MINIMIZATION ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGING SYSTEM; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PUBLICATION; REPRODUCIBILITY; REVIEW; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TIME MANAGEMENT; UNITED KINGDOM; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; AUTOMATION; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; IMAGE PROCESSING; MASS SCREENING; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; TASK PERFORMANCE; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VAGINA SMEAR;

AUTOMATION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EFFICIENCY, ORGANIZATIONAL; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MASS SCREENING; STATE MEDICINE; TIME AND MOTION STUDIES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 18144365869     PISSN: 13665278     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3310/hta9130     Document Type: Review

References (158)

1. Secretary of State for Health. Saving lives: our healthier nation. London: HMSO; 1999.
2. Office for National Statistics. Mortality statistics; cause, 1997. Series DH2, No. 24. London: The Stationery Office; 1999.
3. Fidler HK, Boyes DA, Worth AJ. Cervical cancer detection in British Columbia. A progress report. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the British Commonwealth 1968;75:392-404.
4. Van Oortmarssen GJ, Habbema JD. Epidemiological evidence for age-dependent regression of pre-invasive cervical cancer. Br J Cancer 1991;63:559-665.
5. Sasieni P, Adams J. Effect of screening on cervical cancer mortality in England and Wales: analysis of trends with an age period cohort model. BMJ 1999;318:1244-5.
6. Quinn M, Babb P, Jones J, Allan E. Effect of screening on incidence of and mortality from cancer of the cervix in England: evaluation based on routinely collected statistics. BMJ 1999; 318:904-8.
7. Government Statistical Service. Cervical screening programme, England: 2000-01. London: Department of Health; September 2001.
8. Papanicolaou GN, Traut NF. Diagnosis of uterine cancer by the vaginal smear. New York: Commonwealth Fund; 1943.
9. Guidozzi F. Screening for cervical cancer. Obstetrical and Gynaecological Survey 1996; 51:247-52.
10. Shingleton, HM, Orr JW Jr. Cancer of the cervix. Philadelphia, PA: JP Lippincott; 1995.
11. Evans DM, Hudson AE, Brown CL, Boddington MM, Hughes HE, MacKenzie EF, et al. Terminology in gynaecological cytopathology: report of the working party of the BSCC. J Clin Pathol 1986; 39:933-44.
12. McCrory DC, Mather DB, Bastian L, Datta S, Hasselblad V, Hickey J, et al. Evaluation of cervical cytology. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 5. AHCPR Publication No. 99-E010. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; February 1999.
13. NHS Cervical Screening Programme. Cervical screening. A pocket guide. Sheffield: NHS Cervical Screening Programme; November 1996.
14. Report of a Working Party set up by RCPath, BSCC and NHSCSP. Achievable standards, benchmarks for reporting and criteria for evaluating cervical cytopathology. NHSCSP Publication No. 1. 2nd ed. Sheffield: NHS Cervical Screening Programme; May 2000.
15. Eddy DM. Screening for cervical cancer. Ann Intern Med 1990;113:214-26.
16. Duncan ID, (editor). Guidelines for clinical practice and programme management. NHSCSP Publication No. 8. 2nd ed. Sheffield: NHS Cervical Screening Programme; December 1997.
17. Report of a Working Party convened by the NHSCSP and chaired by Dr John Pritchard. Quality assurance guidelines for the cervical screening programme. NHSCSP Publication No. 3. Sheffield: NHS Cervical Screening Programme; January 1996.
18. Hutchinson ML. Assessing the costs and benefits of alternative rescreening strategies. Acta Cytol 1996;40:4-8.
19. Baker RW, O'Sullivan JP, Hanley J, Coleman DV. The characteristics of false negative cervical smears - implications for the UK cervical screening programme. J Clin Pathol 1999; 52:358-62.
20. Petticrew MP, Sowden AJ, Lister-Sharp D, Wright K. False-negative results in screening programmes: systematic review of impact and implication. Health Technol Assess 2000;4(5).
21. Fahey MT, Irwig L, Macaskill P. Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy. Am J Epidemiol 1995;141:680-9.
22. Poller DN, Willis BH, Codling BW. Search tasks in human visual perception: relevance to diagnosis of cervical small cell and pale dyskaryosis and other cytology specimens. Acta Cytol 1996; 40:851-3.
23. Treisman A, Gormican S. Feature analysis in early vision: evidence for search asymmetries. Psychol Rev 1988;1:15-48.
24. Koss LG, Lin E, Schreiber K, Elgert P, Mango L. Evaluation of the PAPNET cytologic screening system for quality control of cervical smears. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;101:220-9.
25. Anderson TL. Automated screening of conventional Papanicolaou smears: the AutoPap 300 and AutoPap 300 QC Systems. Tutorials of Cytology 1994;306-11.
26. Howell LP, Beln T, Agdigos R, Davis R, Lowe J. AutoCyte Interactive Screening System. Experience at a University Hospital Cytology Laboratory. Acta Cytol 1999;43:58-64.
27. Banda-Gamboa H, Ricketts I, Cairns A, Hussein K, Tucker JH, Husain N. Automation in cervical cytology: an overview. Anal Cell Pathol 1992;4:25-48.
28. Prewitt JM, Mendelsohn ML. The analysis of cell images. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1966;128:1035-43.
29. Taylor J, Bahr GF, Bartels PH, Bibbo M, Richards DL, Wied GL. Development and evaluation of automatic nucleus finding routes and thresholding of cervical cell images. Acta Cytol 1975; 19:289-96.
30. Liedtke CE, Gahm T, Kappei F, Aeikens B. Segmentation of microscopic sciences. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 1987; 9:197-211.
31. Cahn RL, Poulsen RS, Toussaint G. Segmentation of cervical cell images. J Histochem Cytochem 1977; 25:681-7.
32. Holmquist J, Bengtsson E, Eriksson O, Nordin B, Stenkvist B. Computer analysis of cervical cells, automatic feature extraction and classification. J Histochem Cytochem 1978;26:1000-17.
33. http://www.prnewswire.com/comp/110214.html
34. http://www.tripathimaging.com
35. AutoPap® Primary Screening System. Product Insert. Burlington, NC: TriPath; 2001.
36. Zahniser D, Sullivan P. CYTYC Corporation. Acta Cytol 1996;40;37-44.
37. Knesel EA Jr. Roche Image Analysis Systems Inc. Acta Cytol 1996;40:60-6.
38. Payne N, Chilcott J, McGoogan E. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: a rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2000;4(18).
39. Herbert A, Johnson J. Personal view: is it reality or illusion that liquid-based cytology is better than conventional cytology? Cytopathology 2001; 12:383-9.
40. van Ballegooijen M, van den Akker-van Marle ME, Warmerdam PG, Meijer CJ, Walboomers JM, Habbema JD. Present evidence on the value of HPV testing for cervical cancer screening: a model-based exploration of the (cost-) effectiveness. Br J Cancer 1997;76:651-7.
41. Cuzick J, Sasieni P, Davies P, Adams J, Normand C, Frater A, et al. A systematic review of the role of human papillomavirus testing within a cervical screening programme. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3(14).
42. http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/cervical/hpv.html. Accessed 10 January 2005.
43. Williams GH, Romanowski P, Morris L, Madine M, Mills AD, Stoeber K, et al. Improved cervical smear assessment using antibodies against proteins that regulate DNA replication. Proc Natn Acad Sci USA 1998;95:14932-7.
44. Ferris DG, Schiffman M, Litaker MS. Cervicography for triage of women with mildly abnormal cervical cytology results. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:939-43.
45. Cronje HS, van Rensburg E, Cooreman BF, Niemand I, Beyer E. Speculoscopy vs the acetic acid test for cervical neoplasia. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2000;69:249-53.
46. Quek SC, Mould T, Canfell K, Singer A, Skladnev V, Coppleson M. The Polarprobe - emerging technology for cervical cancer screening. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1998;27:717-21.
47. National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the use of liquid based cytology for cervical screening. Technology appraisal guidance No. 5. London: NICE; June 2000.
48. Khan KS, ter Reit G, Glanville J, Sowden AJ, Kleijnen J, editors. Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness. CRD Report 4. (2nd ed). York: NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; March 2001.
49. Clarke M, Oxman AD, editors. Cochrane Reviewers' Handbook 4.0 [updated July 1999]. In The Cochrane Library [database on CD-ROM] (Issue 3). The Cochrane Collaboration. Oxford: Update Software; 2000.
50. Irwig L, Tosteson ANA, Gastonis C, Lau J, Colditz G, Chalmers TC, et al. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluation diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med 1994;120:667-76.
51. Briggs AH, Gray AM. Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. Health Technol Assess 1999;3(2).
52. Noorani H, Arratoon C, Hall A. Assessment of techniques for cervical cancer screening. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Co-ordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment; May 1997.
53. Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee. Review of automated and semi-automated cervical screening devices. Canberra: Technology Section, Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services; April 1998. pp. 1-86.
54. Egger M, Smith GD. Principles of and procedures for systematic reviews. In Egger M, Smith GD, Altman D, editors. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001. Chapter 2.
55. Shea B, Dubé C, Moher D. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews: the QUOROM statement compared to other tools. In Egger M, Smith GD, Altman D, editors. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001. Chapter 7.
56. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup D. Improving the quality of reporting of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet 1999; 354:1896-900.
57. Abulafia O, Sherer DM. Automated cervical cytology: meta-analyses of the performance of the PAPNET system. Obstet Gynaecol Surv 1999; 54:253-64.
58. Abulafia O, Sherer DM. Automated cervical cytology: meta-analyses of the performance of the AutoPap 300 QC System. Obstet Cynaecol Surv 1999;54:469-76.
59. Mango LJ, Radensky PW. Interactive neural network assisted screening: a clinical assessment. Acta Cytol 1998; 42:233-45.
60. Radensky PW, Mango LJ. Interactive neural network-assisted screening: an economic assessment. Acta Cytol 1998; 42:246-52.
61. Smith BL, Lee M, Leader S, Wertlake P. Economic impact of automated primary screening for cervical cancer. J Reprod Med 1999;44:518-28.
62. Broadstock M. Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of automated and semi-automated cervical screening devices: a systematic review. NZ HTA Report 2000;3(1).
63. Brown AD, Garber AM. Cost-effectiveness of 3 methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing. JAMA 1999; 281:347-53.
64. Myers ER, McCrory DC, Subramanian S, McCall N, Nanda K, Datta S, et al. Setting the target for a better cervical screening test: characteristics of a cost-effective test for cervical neoplasia screening. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96:645-52.
65. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, Bastian LA, Hasselblad V, Hickey JD, et al. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:810-19.
66. Austin RM, Ramzy I. Increased detection of epithelial cell abnormalities by liquid-based gynecologic cytology preparations. A review of accumulated data. Acta Cytol 1998;42:178-84.
67. Cuzick J, Sasieni P, Davies P, Adams J, Normand C, Frater A, et al. A systematic review of the role of human papillomavirus testing within a cervical screening programme: summary and conclusions. Br J Cancer 2000;83:561-5.
68. Egger M, Zellweger Zahner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 1997;350:326-9.
69. Szczepura A, Kankaanpaa T, editors. Assessment of health care technologies. Key concepts and strategic issues. Chichester: John Wiley; 1996.
70. Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. The BMJ Economic Evaluation Working Party. BMJ 1996;313:275-83.
71. Mango LJ. Neural network-assisted cervical cancer screening. Journal of Clinical Ligand Assay 1998; 21:203-7.
72. O'Leary TJ, Tellado M, Buckner SB, Ali IS, Stevens A, Ollayos CW. PAPNET-assisted rescreening of cervical smears: cost and accuracy compared with a 100% manual rescreening strategy.JAMA 1998; 279:235-7.
73. Schechter CB. Cost-effectiveness of rescreening conventionally prepared cervical smears by PAPNET testing. Acta Cytol 1996;40:1272-82.
74. Brotzman GL, Kretzchmar S, Ferguson D, Gottlieb M, Stowe C. Costs and outcomes of PAPNET secondary screening technology for cervical cytologic evaluation. A community hospital's experience. Archives of Family Medicine 1999;8:52-5.
75. Raab SS, Zaleski MS, Silverman JF. The cost-effectiveness of the cytology laboratory and new cytology technologies in cervical cancer prevention. Am J Clin Pathol 1999;111:259-66.
76. Troni GM, Cipparrone I, Cariaggi MP, Ciatto S, Miccinesi G, Zappa M, et al. Detection of false-negative pap smears using the PAPNET system. Tumori 2000;86:455-7.
77. van Ballegooijen M, van den Akker-van Marle, Patnick J, Lynge E, Arbyn M, Anttila A, et al. Overview of important cervical screening process values in European Union (EU) countries, and tentative predictions of the corresponding effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Eur J Cancer 2000;36:2177-88.
78. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
79. Eddy D. The frequency of cervical cancer screening: comparison of a mathematical model with empirical data. Cancer 1987;60:1117-22.
80. Sherlaw-Johnson C, Gallivan S, Jenkins D, Jones MH. Cytological screening and management of abnormalities in prevention of cervical cancer: an overview with stochastic modelling. J Clin Pathol 1994;47:430-5.
81. Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine. How to practice and teach EBM. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.
82. Barratt A, Irwig L, Glasziou P, Cumming RG, Raffle A, Hicks N, et al., for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users' guides to the medical literature. XVII. How to use guidelines and recommendations about screening. JAMA 1999;281:2029-34.
83. Reid MC, Lachs MS, Feinstein AR. Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good. JAMA 1995;274:645-51.
84. Intersociety Working Group for Cytology Technologies. Proposed guidelines for primary screening instruments for gynecologic cytology. Acta Cytol 1997;41:924-9.
85. Intersociety Working Group for Cytology Technologies. Proposed guidelines for secondary screening (rescreening) instruments for gynecologic cytology. Acta Cytol 1998;42:273-4.
86. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley; 1981.
87. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. A. Are the results of the study valid? JAMA 1994;271:389-91.
88. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? JAMA 1994; 271:703-7.
89. How good is that test (II)? Bandolier 1996;(27):2. URL:http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band27/b27-2.html.
90. Ransohoff DF, Feinstein AR. Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med 1978; 299:926-30.
91. Lachs MS Nachamkin I, Edelstein PH, Goldman J, Feinstein AR, Schwartz JS. Spectrum bias in the evaluation of diagnostic tests: lessons from the rapid dipstick test for urinary tract infection. Ann Intern Med 1992;117:135-40.
92. Nanda K, Myers ER. Selecting a cervical cytology screening test - what are the issues? Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management 2001;8:29-32.
93. Choi BC. Sensitivity and specificity of a single diagnostic test in the presence of work-up bias. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45:581-6.
94. Melnikow J, Nuovo J, Willan AR, Chan BK, Howell LP. Natural history of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92:727-35.
95. McIndoe WA, McLean MR, Jones RW, Mullins PR. The invasive potential of carcinoma in situ of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol 1984;64:451-8.
96. Chock C, Irwig L, Berry G, Glasziou P. Comparing dichotomous screening tests when individuals negative on both tests are not verified. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:1211-17.
97. Miller WC. Bias in discrepant analysis: when two wrongs don't make a right. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51:219-31.
98. Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers TC, Sacks HS, Smith H. Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1987; 8:343-53.
99. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991; 337:867-72.
100. Song F, Eastwood AJ, Gilbody S, Duley L, Sutton AJ. Publication and related biases. Health Technol Assess 2000; 4(10).
101. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA 1990; 263:1385-9.
102. Sohn D. Publications bias and the evaluation of psychotherapy efficacy in reviews of the research literature. Clin Psychol Rev 1996;16:147-56.
103. Hetherington J, Dickersin K, Chalmers I, Meinert CL. Retrospective and prospective identification of unpublished controlled trials: lessons from a survey of obstetricians and pediatricians. Pediatrics 1989;84:374-80.
104. Irwig L, Macaskill P, Glasziou P, Fahey M. Meta-analytic methods of diagnostic test accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48:119-30.
105. Altman DG, Machin D, Bryant TN, Gardner MJ. Statistics with confidence. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books; 2000.
106. Doornewaard H, van der Schouw YT, van der Graaf Y, Bos AB, Habbema JDK, van den Tweel JG. The diagnostic value of computer-assisted primary cervical smear screening: a longitudinal cohort study. Mod Pathol 1999;12:995-1000.
107. Sherman ME, Schiffman M, Herrero R, Kelly D, Bratti C, Mango LJ, et al. Performance of a semiautomated Papanicolaou smear screening system. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 1998; 84:273-80.
108. Hølund B, Ejersbo D, Hjortebjerg A. Evaluering af PAPNET - et semiautomatisk screeningssystems anvendelse i screening mod livmoderhalskraeft. [Evaluation of PAPNET - a semiautomated system used in the screening against cervical cancer] [in Danish]. Ugeskr Laeger 1998;160:5802-6.
109. Kok MR, Boon ME, Schreiner-Kok CT, Koss LG. Cytological recognition of invasive cancer of the uterine cervix: comparison of conventional light-microscopical screening and neural network-based screening. Hum Pathol 2000;31:23-8.
110. Duggan MA, Brasher P. Paired comparison of manual and automated Pap test screening using the PAPNET system. Diagn Cytopathol 1997; 17:248-54.
111. Lerma E, Colomo L, Carreras A, Esteva E, Quilez M, Prat J. Resecreening of atypical cervicovaginal smears using PAPNET. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 1998;84:361-5.
112. PRISMATIC Project Management Team. Assessment of automated primary screening on PAPNET of cervical smears in the PRISMATIC trial. Lancet 1999;353:1381-5.
113. Veneti S, Papaefthimiou M, Symiakaki H, Ioannidou-Mouzaka L. PAPNET for cervical cytology screening. Experience in Greece. Acta Cytol 1999;43:30-3.
114. Wilbur DC, Prey MU, Miller WM, Pawlick GF, Colgan TJ. The AutoPap system for primary screening in cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 1998; 42:214-20.
115. Wilbur DC, Prey MU, Miller WM, Pawlick GF, Colgan TJ, Taylor DD. Detection of high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and tumors using the AutoPap system. Results of a primary screening clinical trial. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 1999;87:354-8.
116. Doornewaard H, van der Schouw YT, van der Graaf Y. Reproducibility in double scanning of cervical smears with the PAPNET system. Acta Cytol 2000;44:604-10.
117. Doornewaard H, van der Schouw YT, van der Graaf Y, Bos AB, van den Tweel JG. Observer variation in cytologic grading for cervical dysplasia of Papanicolaou smears with the PAPNET testing system. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 1999;87:178-83.
118. Jenny J, Isenegger I, Boon ME, Husain OA. Consistency of a double PAPNET scan of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1997; 41:82-7.
119. Mitchell H, Medley G. Differences between false-negative and true-positive Papanicoloaou smears on Papnet-assisted review. Diagn Cytopathol 1998; 19:138-40.
120. Mitchell H, Medley G. Detection of unsuspected abnormalities by PAPNET-assisted review. Acta Cytol 1998;42:260-4.
121. Mitchell H, Medley G. Detection of laboratory false negative smears by the PAPNET cytologic screening system. Acta Cytol 1998; 42:265-70.
122. Wertlake P. Results of AutoPap system assisted and manual cytologic screening. A comparison. J Reprod Med 1999; 44:11-17.
123. Fetterman B, Pawlick G, Koo H, Hartinger J, Gilbert C, Connell S. Determining the utility and effectiveness of the NeoPath AutoPap 300 QC system used routinely. Acta Cytol 1999; 43:13-22.
124. Marshall CJ, Rowe L, Bentz JS. Improved quality-control detection of false-negative Pap smears using the Autopap 300 QC system. Diagn Cytopathol 1999;20:170-4.
125. Bibbo M, Hawthorne C. Performance of the AutoPap Primary Screening System at Jefferson University Hospital. Acta Cytol 1999;43:27-9.
126. Chhieng DC, Elgert PA, Xiong Y, Cangiarella JF, Cohen J-M. Use of computer-assisted rescreening as an ancillary tool to subclassify AGUS cervical smears. Diagn Cytopathol 2000;23: 165-70.
127. Huang TW, Lin TS, Lee JS. Sensitivity studies of AutoPap® System Location-Guided Screening of cervical-vaginal cytologic smears. Acta Cytol 1999; 43:363-8.
128. Duggan MA. Papnet-assisted, primary screening of cervico-vaginal smears. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2000; 21:35-42.
129. Lee JS, Kuan L, Oh S, Patten FW, Wilbur DC. A feasibility study of the AutoPap System Location-Guided Screening. Acta Cytol 1998;42:221-6.
130. Losell K, Dejmek A. Comparison of Papnet-assisted and manual screening of cervical smears. Diagn Cytopathol 1999; 21:296-9.
131. Sturgis CD, Isoe C, McNeal NE, Yu GH, DeFrias DV. PAPNET computer-aided rescreening for detection of benign and malignant glandular elements in cervicovaginal smears: a review of 61 cases. Diagn Cytopathol 1998;18:307-11.
132. Kmietowicz Z. Registries will have to apply for right to collect patients' data without consent. BMJ 2001;322:1199.
133. Mayor S. UK researchers told to maintain confidentiality. BMJ 2000;321:917.
134. Brown P. Cancer registries fear imminent collapse. BMJ 2000;321:849.
135. Casey A, McGloin J, Kocjan G. Evaluation of rapid re-screening compared with PAPNET assisted cervical screening as a method of detecting false negative cervical smears. BSCC Annual Scientific Meeting 1995; A10.
136. Morse A, Douglas G, Coleman D. Evaluation of the PAPNET system for quality control in cervical screening. BSCC Annual Scientific Meeting 1995; A11.
137. Desai M, for the European PAPNET Study Group. A multicentric European study comparing PAPNET assisted screening of archival cervical smears with conventional manual screening. BSCC Annual Scientific Meeting 1998; A34.
138. Sampson H, Brooke D, Sutton J, Quirke P. Performance of the AutoPap Primary Screening System. J Pathol 2001; 195(Suppl):39a.
139. Stone DH. Design a questionnaire. BMJ 1993; 307:1264-6.
140. Smith R. What is publication? A continuum. BMJ 1999; 318:142.
141. Grohs DH. Impact of automated technology on the cervical cytologic smear. A comparison of cost. Acta Cytol 1998; 42:165-70.
142. Automated Pap smear rescreening technologies. Windows on medical technology; No. 4. Plymouth Meeting, PA: ECRI; March 1998.
143. Bishop JW. The cost of production in cervical cytology: comparison of conventional and automated primary screening system. Am J Clin Pathol 1997;107:445-50.
144. Sasieni PD, Cuzick J, Lynch-Farmery E, National Co-ordinating Network for Cervical Screening Working Group. Estimating the efficacy of screening by auditing smear histories of women with and without cervical cancer. Br J Cancer 1996;73:1001-5.
145. http://www.statistics.gov.uk. Accessed 7 February 2002.
146. Redburn JC, Murphy MFG. Hysterectomy prevalence and adjusted cervical and uterine cancer rates in England and Wales. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2001;108:388-95.
147. Ho GYK, Bierman R, Beardsley L, Chang CJ, Burk RD. Natural history of cervicovaginal papillomavirus infection in young women. N Engl J Med 1998;338:423-8.
148. Furber SE, Weisberg E, Simpson JM. Progression and regression of low-grade epithelial abnormalities of the cervix. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;37:107-12.
149. Hulman G, Pickles CJ, Gie CA, Dowling FM, Stocks PJ, Dixon R. Frequency of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia following large loop excision of the transformation zone. J Clin Pathol 1998; 51:375-77.
150. Zaitoun AM, McKee G, Coppen MJ, Thomas SM, Wilson PO. Completeness of excision and follow-up cytology in patients treated with loop excision biopsy. J Clin Pathol 2000;53:191-6.
151. Office for National Statistics. Cancer statistics; registrations. Registrations of cancer diagnosed in 1998, England. Series MB1, No. 29. London: Office for National Statistics; 2000.
152. Government Statistical Service. Cervical screening programme, England: 1999-2000. London: Department of Health; November 2000.
153. Jones MH, Jenkins D, Singer A. Regular audit of colposcopic biopsies from women with a mildly dyskaryotic or borderline cervical smear results in fewer cases of CIN III. Cytopathology 1996; 7:17-24.
154. Netten A, Curtis L. Unit costs of health and social care. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2000.
155. Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. JAMA 1994; 272(17):1367-71.
156. Sterne JAC, Bartlett C, Jüni P, Egger M. Do we need comprehensive literature searches? A study of publication and language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials. In 3rd Symposium on Systematic Reviews: beyond the basics, 3-5 July 2000, Oxford.
157. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Ryan G, Clifton J, Buckingham L, Willan A, et al. Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses? Current convictions and controversies. JAMA 1993; 269:2749-53.
158. Angell M. Negative studies. N Engl J Med 1989; 321:464-6.