Papanicolaou tests: Does lubricant reduce the quality or adequacy?

Canadian Family Physician

Volumn 57, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 309-

  Allan, G Michael ^a   Korownyk, Christina ^a   Ivers, Noah ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b WOMEN S COLLEGE HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LUBRICATING AGENT;

ARTICLE; CELL COUNT; CHLAMYDIA; CYTOLOGY; DEVICE; GONORRHEA; GYNECOLOGICAL EXAMINATION; HUMAN; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; SCREENING; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

CERVIX UTERI; FEMALE; HUMANS; LUBRICATION; SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 79953204298     PISSN: 0008350X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Amies AM, Miller L, Lee SK, Koutsky L. The effect of vaginal speculum lubrication on the rate of unsatisfactory cervical cytology diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100(5 Pt 1):889-92. (Pubitemid 35387457)
2. Harer WB, Valenzuela G Jr, Lebo D. Lubrication of the vaginal introitus and speculum does not affect Papanicolaou smears. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100(5 Pt 1):887-8. (Pubitemid 35387456)
3. Gilson M, Desai A, Cardoza-Favarato G, Vroman P, Thornton JA. Does gel affect cytology or comfort in the screening Papanicolaou smear? J Am Board Fam Med 2006;19(4):340-4.
4. Griffith WF, Stuart GS, Gluck KL, Heartwell SF. Vaginal speculum lubrication and its effects on cervical cytology and microbiology. Contraception 2005;72(1):60-4. (Pubitemid 40827120)
5. Charoenkwan K, Ninunanahaeminda K, Khunamornpong S, Srisomboon J, Thorner PS. Effects of gel lubricant on cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 2008;52(6):654-8.
6. Abdullgaffar B, Kamal MO, Khalid M, Samuel R, AlGhufli R. Lubricant, mucus, and other contaminant materials as a potential source of interpretation errors in ThinPrep cervical cytology. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2010;14(1):22-8.
7. Holton T, Smith D, Terry M, Madgwick A, Levine T. The effect of lubricant contamination on ThinPrep (Cytyc) cervical cytology liquid-based preparations. Cytopathology 2008;19(4):236-43. Epub 2007 Dec 18. (Pubitemid 351952113)
8. Hathaway JK, Pathak PK, Maney R. Is liquid-based pap testing affected by waterbased lubricant? Obstet Gynecol 2006;107(1):66-70.
9. Kozakis L, Vuddamalay J, Munday P. Plastic specula: can we ease the passage? Sex Transm Infect 2006;82(3):263-4.
10. TOP Cervical Cancer Guideline Group. Guideline for screening for cervical cancer. Edmonton, AB: Toward Optimized Practice; 2009.
11. Meissner HI, Tiro JA, Yabroff KR, Haggstrom DA, Coughlin SS. Too much of a good thing? Physician practices and patient willingness for less frequent Pap test screening intervals. Med Care 2010;48(3):249-59.
12. Nelson W, Moser RP, Gaffey A, Waldron W. Adherence to cervical cancer screening guidelines for US women aged 25-64: data from the 2005 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2009;18(11):1759-68.
13. Tseng DS, Cox E, Plane MB, Hla KM. Efficacy of patient letter reminders on cervical cancer screening: a meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med 2001;16(8):563-8.
14. Karwalajtys T, Kaczorowski J, Lohfeld L, Laryea S, Anderson K, Roder S, Sebaldt RJ. Acceptability of reminder letters for Papanicolaou tests: a survey of women from 23 family health networks in Ontario. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2007;29(10):829-34.
15. Beilby JJ, Wakefield MA, Maddock AM. General practitioner attitudes to recall systems for cervical screening. Med J Aust 1995;163(5):245-8.