Cervical cancer screening: What is cost-effectiveness?

Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease

Volumn 3, Issue SUPPL. 1, 1999, Pages

  Sedlacek, Thomas V ^a   Cooper, Amy S ^a  

^a DREXEL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 4243918589     PISSN: 10892591     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00128360-199901001-00001     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Koss LG. The Papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection: A triumph and a tragedy. JAMA 1989;261:737-43.
2. Braly P, Lichter AS, Ash DK, et al. Draft of Consensus, Development, Conference, Statement, Cervical Cancer. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, 1996.
3. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, PL 100-578. Congressional Record 1988;134:3828-63.
4. Sprenger E, Schwarzmann P, Kirkpatrick M, et al. The false negative rate in cervical cytology: Comparison of monolayers to conventional smears. Acta Cytol 1996;40:81.
5. Goodman A, Hutchinson ML. Cell surplus on sampling devices after routine cervical cytological smears: A study of residual cell populations. J Reprod Med 1996;41:239.
6. Van der Graf Y, Voojis GP. False negative rate in cervical cytology. J Clin Pathol 1987;40:438-42.
7. Colgan TJ, Patient SF, et al. A clinical trial of the AutoPap 300QC system for quality control of cervicovaginal cytology in the clinical laboratory. Acta Cytol 1995;39:1191-8.
8. Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG, Corkill ME, McIntosh KM, Inhorn SL. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid based, thin layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:278-84.