Women in the netherlands prefer self-sampling with a novel lavaging device to clinician collection of specimens for cervical cancer screening

Sexually Transmitted Diseases

Volumn 35, Issue 11, 2008, Pages 916-917

  Jones, Heidi E ^a   Wiegerinck, Maarten A H M ^b   Nieboer, Theodoor E ^c   Mol, Ben W ^b   Westhoff, Carolyn L ^a  

^a New York Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children's Hospital   (United States)

^b MÁXIMA MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c RIJNSTATE HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER GRADING; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER SCREENING; COLPOSCOPY; DEVICE; FEMALE; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; NETHERLANDS; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; QUESTIONNAIRE; SELF HELP; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; VAGINAL LAVAGE; WART VIRUS; ADOLESCENT; CYTOLOGY; INSTRUMENTATION; ISOLATION AND PURIFICATION; LAVAGE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PAPILLOMA VIRUS; PATHOLOGY; PATIENT ATTITUDE; SELF CARE; SYRINGE; UTERINE CERVIX; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; UTILIZATION REVIEW; VIROLOGY; VIRUS INFECTION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CERVIX UTERI; FEMALE; HUMANS; IRRIGATION; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; SELF CARE; SPECIMEN HANDLING; SYRINGES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 58149151422     PISSN: 01485717     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e3181812cf0     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Mayrand MH, Duarte-Franco E, Rodrigues I, et al. Human papillomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou screening tests for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 2007; 357:1579-1588.
2. Harper DM, Noll WW, Belloni DR, Cole BF. Randomized clinical trial of PCR-determined human papillomavirus detection methods: self-sampling versus clinician-directed-biologic concordance and women's preferences. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186:365-373.
3. Ogilvie GS, Patrick DM, Schulzer M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of self collected vaginal specimens for human papillomavirus compared to clinician collected human papillomavirus specimens: a meta-analy- sis. Sex Transm Infect 2005; 81:207-212.
4. Petignat P, Faltin DL, Bruchim I, et al. Are self-collected samples comparable to physician-collected cervical specimens for human papillomavirus DNA testing? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Oncol 2007; 105:530-535.
5. Walsh JC. The impact of knowledge, perceived barriers and perceptions of risk on attendance for a routine cervical smear. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2006; 11:291-296.
6. Knops-Dullens T, de Vries N, de Vries H. Reasons for non-attendance in cervical cancer screening programmes: an application of the integrated model for behavioural change. Eur J Cancer Prev 2007; 16:436-445.
7. van den Akker-van Marle ME, van Ballegooijen M, Habbema JDF. Low risk of cervical cancer during a long period after negative screening in the Netherlands. Br J Cancer 2003; 88:1054-1057.
8. Brink AATP, Meijer CJLM, Wiegerinck MAHM, et al. High concordance of results of testing for human papillomavirus in cervicovagi- nal samples collected by two methods, with comparison of a novel self-sampling device to a conventional endocervical brush. J Clin Microbiol 2006; 44:2518-2523.
9. Gök M, Heideman DA, van Kemenade FJ, et al. Offering hrHPV testing on self-sampled specimens to non-responders in a screening program: interim findings. Paper presented at the 24th International Papillomavirus Conference; November 3-9, 2007; Beijing, China.