Predictors of an Unsatisfactory Conventional Cervical Cytology Smear

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada

Volumn 33, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 725-728

  Paulin, Heidi ^a   Geldenhuys, Laurette ^a   Naugler, Christopher ^b,c  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

^c CALGARY LABORATORY SERVICES   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cervical cytology; Patient demographics; Specimen adequacy

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MENSTRUAL CYCLE; ORAL CONTRACEPTIVE USE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; POSTMENOPAUSE; PREDICTION; PUERPERIUM; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; CANADA; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; PATHOLOGY; STATISTICS; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VAGINA SMEAR;

ADULT; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; NOVA SCOTIA; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 82255166790     PISSN: 17012163     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)34958-1     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Nieminen P., Kallio M., Hakama M. The effect of mass screening on incidence and mortality of squamous and adenocarcinoma of cervix uteri. Obstet Gynecol 1995, 85:1017-1021.
2. Peto J., Gilham C., Fletcher O., Matthews F.E. The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK. Lancet 2004, 364:249-256.
3. National Cancer Institute Workshop The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytological diagnoses. JAMA 1988, 262:931-934.
4. Solomon D., Davey D., Kurman R., Moriarty A., O'Connor D., Prey M., et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002, 287:2114-2119.
5. Davey D.D., Cox J.T., Austin R.M., Birdsong G., Colgan T.J., Howell L.P., et al. Cervical cytology specimen adequacy: patient management guidelines and optimizing specimen collection. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2008, 12:71-81.
6. Colgan T.J. Pap test results: Responding to Bethesda system reports. Can Fam Physician 2001, 47:1425-1430.
7. McGaraghan A., Smith-McCune K. Follow-up of unsatisfactory Papanicolaou test results. JAMA 2000, 283:1290-1291.
8. Vooijs G.P., van der Graaf Y., Elias A.G. Cellular composition of cervical smears in relation to the day of the menstrual cycle and the method of contraception. Acta Cytol 1987, 31:417-426.
9. Lu C.-H., Chang C.-C., Chang M.-C., Chen S.-J., Jan Y.-J., Fu T.-F., et al. Clinical parameters associated with unsatisfactory specimens of conventional cervical smears. Diagn Cytopathol 2011, 39:87-91.
10. Prandi S., Beccati D., De Aloysio G., Fulgenzi P., Gabrielli M., Ghirardini C., et al. Applicability of the Bethesda System 2001 to a public health setting. Cancer 2006, 108:271-276.
11. Adams A.L., Gidley J., Roberson J., Wang W., Eltoum I., Chhieng D.C. Clinical significance of unsatisfactory conventional Pap smears owing to inadequate squamous cellularity defined by the Bethesda 2001 criterion. Am J Clin Pathol 2005, 123:738-743.
12. Amies A.M., Miller L., Lee S.K., Koutsky L. The effect of vaginal speculum lubrication on the rate of unsatisfactory cervical cytology diagnosis. Obstet Gynecol 2002, 100:889-892.
13. Castle P.E., Bulten J., Confortini M., Klinkhamer P., Pellegrini A., Siebers A.G., et al. Age-specific patterns of unsatisfactory results for conventional Pap smears and liquid-based cytology: data from two randomized clinical trials. BJOG 2010, 117:1067-1073.
14. Papillo J.L., Zarka M.A., John T.L.S. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap Test in clinical practice: a seven-month, 16,314-case experience in northern Vermont. Acta Cytol 1998, 42:203-208.
15. Davey E., Barratt A., Irwig L., Chan S.F., Macaskill P., Mannes P., et al. Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid-based versus conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review. Lancet 2006, 367:122-132.