Multicenter direct to vial evaluation of a liquid-based Pap test

Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 308-312

  Hatch, Kenneth D ^a   Sheets, Ellen ^b   Kennedy, Alex ^c   Ferris, Daron G ^d   Darragh, Terry ^e   Twiggs, Leo ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d MEDICAL COLLEGE OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI   (United States)

Author keywords

Cervical cancer screening; Cytology; Pap smear

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; COLPOSCOPY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRECANCER; PREDICTION; UTERINE CERVIX BIOPSY;

EID: 4944227449     PISSN: 10892591     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00128360-200410000-00009     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Hutchinson ML, Isenstein LM, Goodman A, Hurley AA, Douglass KL, Mui KK, et al. Homogeneous sampling accounts for the increased diagnostic accuracy using the Thin-Prep Processor. Am J Clin Pathol 1994;101:215-9.
2. McCrory DC, Matchar DB. United States Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Evaluation of cervical cytology evidence report/technology assessment. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1999; No. 5.
3. Davey DD, Nielsen ML, Rosenstock W, Kline TS. Terminology and specimen adequacy in cervicovaginal cytology. The College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program experience. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1992;116:903-7.
4. Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG, Corkill ME, McIntosh KM, Inhorn SL. Comparison of conventional Pap smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:278-84.
5. Bernstein SJ, Sanchez-Ramos L, Ndubisi B. Liquid-based cervical cytologic smear study and conventional Pap smears: a metaanalysis of prospective studies comparing cytologic diagnosis and sample adequacy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:308-17.
6. Bolick DR, Hellman DJ. Laboratory implementation and efficacy assessment of the ThinPrep cervical cancer screening system. Acta Cytol 1998;42:209-13.
7. Diaz-Rosario LA, Kabawat SE. Performance of a fluid-based, thin-layer Pap smear method in the clinical setting of an independent laboratory and an outpatient screening population in New England. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1999;123:816-21.
8. Papilloo JL, Azrka MA, St John TL. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap test in clinical practice. A seven-month, 16,314-case experience in northern Vermont. Acta Cytol 1998;42:203-8.
9. Kurman RJ, Solomon D. The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: definitions, criteria, and explanatory notes for terminology and specimen adequacy. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1994.