Collection devices for obtaining cervical cytology samples

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Volumn 2000, Issue 3, 2000, Pages

  Martin Hirsch, Pierre P L ^a   Jarvis, Gerry G ^b   Kitchener, Henry C ^c   Lilford, Richard ^d  

^a ROYAL PRESTON HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b ST JAMES S UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CERVICAL CELL LINE; CONTAMINATION; CYTOBRUSH; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; DISEASE SEVERITY; DYSKARYOSIS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY COLLECTION DEVICE; FEMALE; INSTRUMENTATION; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VAGINA SMEAR; CLINICAL TRIAL; PATHOLOGY;

FEMALE; HUMANS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS; CLINICAL TRIALS;

EID: 84921432428     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1469493X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001036     Document Type: Review

References (66)

1. Boon M, de Graff JC, Rietveld WJ. Analysis of five sampling methods for the preparation of cervical smears. Acta cytologica 1989;33:843-848.
2. Bounds W, Grubb C, Metaxas N, Vessey M. A randomised comparative trial of the performance of the Ayre and Armocervical spatulae. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1976;83:981-987.
3. Buxton J, Luesley D, Woodman C, Redman C, Williams D. Endocervical sampling with a cytobrush does not improve cervical cytology. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica 1987;Suppl:FC / 78.
4. Deckert JJ, Staten S, Palermo V. Improved endocervical cell yield with cytobrush. The Journal of family practice 1988;26:639-41.
5. Dey P, Collins M, Woodman C. Adequacy of cervical cytology sampling with the Cervexbrush and Aylesbury Spatula: a population based randomised controlled study. BMJ 1996;313:721-3.
6. Dotters J, Carney C, Drogemueller W. Nylon brush improves collection of cercical cytological specimens. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1988;159:814-9.
7. Elias A, Linhorst G, Bekker B, Voojis PG. The significance of endocervical cells in the diagnosis of cervical epithelial changes. Acta cytologica 1983;27:225-9.
8. Fokke HE, Salvatore CM, Schipper MEI, Bleker OP. A randomised trial of three methods of obtaining Papanicolaou smears. European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology 1993;48:103-6.
9. Garite T, Feldman M. An evaluation of cytological sampling techniques; a comparative study. Acta cytologica 1978;22:83-5.
10. Giles R, Grainger M, Harris VG, Chapman G, Wycherley J, Pistofides GA. A comparative trial of the Multi-spatula and the Aylesbury Spatula for cervical screening. Obstetrics and gynecology 1991;11:72-4.
11. Goorney BP, Lacey CJN, Sutton JA. Ayre v Aylesbury cervical spatulas. Genitourinary medicine 1989;65:161-2.
12. Hamblin JE, Brock CD, Litchfield L, Dias J. Papanicolaou smear adequacy: effect of different techniques in specific fertility states. The Journal of family practice 1985;3:257-60.
13. Hjersing M, Hom E, Larson G. Comparison between Cytobrush and Papaplast in sampling vaginal smears. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica 1991;70:595-9.
14. Hughes RG, Haddad NG, Smart GE, Colquhoun M, McGoogan E, Macintyre C, Prescott RJ. The cytological detection of persistent intra-epithelial neoplasia after local ablative therapy: a comparison of sampling devices. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1992;99:498-502.
15. Hughes RG, Haddad NG, Smart GE, Colquhoun M, McGoogan E, Macintyre C, Prescott RJ. The cytological detection of persistent intra-epithelial neoplasia after local ablative therapy: a comparison of sampling devices. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1992;99:498-502.
16. Hughes RG, Haddad NG, Smart GE, Colquhoun M, McGoogan E, Macintyre C, Prescott RJ. The cytological detection of persistent intra-epithelial neoplasia after local ablative therapy: a comparison of sampling devices. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1992;99:498-502.
17. Kavak ZN, Eren F, Pekin S, Kullu S. A randomized comparison of the 3 Papanicolaou smear collection methods. The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology 1995;35:446-9.
18. Koonings PP, Dickenson K, d'Ablaing G, Schlaerth JB. A randomised clinical trial comparing the Cytobrush and Cotton swab for Papanicolaou smears. Obstetrics and gynecology 1992;80:241-5.
19. Kristensen GB, Holund B, Grinsted P. Efficacy of the Cytobrush versus the Cotton Swab in the collection of endocervical Cells. Acta cytologica 1989;33:849-51.
20. Longfield JC, Grimshaw RN, Monaghan JM. Simultaneous sampling of the endocervix and ectocervix using the Profile brush. Acta cytologica 1993;37:472-476.
21. Mauney M, Eide D, Sotham J. Rates of condyloma and dysplasia in Papanicoloaou smears with and without endocervical cells. Diagnostic cytopathology 1990;6:18-21.
22. McCord ML, Stovall TG, Meric JL, Summitt RL, Coleman SA. Cervical cytology: a randomised comparison of four sampling methods. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 1992;166:1772-7.
23. Metcalf K, Sutton J, Moloney M, Browne L, Peel K, Baines A. Which cervical sampler? A comparison of four methods. Cytopathology 1994;5:219-25.
24. Metcalf K, Sutton J, Moloney M, Browne L, Peel K, Baines A. Which cervical sampler? A comparison of four methods. Cytopathology 1994;5:219-25.
25. Mitchell H, Medley G, Drake M. Quality control measures for cervical cytology laboratories. Acta cytologica 1988;32:288-292.
26. Mitchell H, Medley G, Drake M. Quality control measures for cervical cytology laboratories. Acta cytologica 1988;32:288-292.
27. Neinstein LS, Rabinovitz S, Recalde AJ. Comparison of Cytobrush with cotton swab for endocervical cytological sampling. Journal of adolescent health care: official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine 1989;10:305-7.
28. Noel M, Kazal LA, Glenday MC. Papanicolaou smear adequacy: the effect of the samling sequence. The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice / American Board of Family Practice 1993;6:103-7.
29. Paraiso MF, Brady K, Helmchen R, Roat T. Evaluation of the endocervical Cytobrush and Cervexbrush in pregnant women. Obstetrics and gynecology 1994;84:539-43.
30. Partoll LM, Javaheri G. Cervical cytology after cryosurgery, laser ablation and conization. A comparison of the cotton swab and endocervical brush. Acta cytologica 1993;37:876-8.
31. Pistofides GA, Brown ER, Harris VG, Grainfer JM, Spring JE, Carr JV, Chapman MG. Detection of abnormal cervical smears; A comparative study. Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica 1988;67:153-4.
32. Pretorius RG, Sadeghi M, Fotheringham N, Semrad N, Watring WG. A randomised trial of three methods of obtaining Papanicolaou smears. Obstetrics and gynecology 1991;78:831-6.
33. Schettino F, Sideri M, Cangini L, Candiani M, Zannoni E, Maggi R, Ferrari A. Endocervical detection of CIN Cytobrush versus Cotton. European journal of gynaecological oncology 1993;14:234-6.
34. Selvaggi M, Malviya V. Sampling accuracy of the modified Ayre spatula/Zelsmyr Cytobrush versus the modified Ayre/Bulb Aspirator in the collection of cells from the uterine cervix. Diagnostic cytopathology 1991;7:318-22.
35. Stock RJ, Thrumond AI, Passmore A. A comparison between the Accu-Pap Device and the extended Tip wooden Ayre spatula for cervical cytology sampling. Acta cytologica 1988;32:307-10.
36. Szarewski A, Cuzick J, Nayagam M, Thin R. A comparison of four cytological sampling techniques in a genitourinary medicine clinic. Genitourinary medicine 1990;66:439-43.
37. Szarewski A, Cuzick J, Singer A. Cervical smears following laser treatment. Acta cytologica 1991;35:76-8.
38. Szarewski A, Curran G, Edwards R, Cuzick J, Kocjan G, Bounds W, Gulliband J. Comparison of four sampling techniques in a large family planning center. Acta cytologica 1993;37:457-60.
39. Szarewski A, Curran G, Edwards R, Cuzick J, Kocjan G, Bounds W, Gulliband J. Comparison of four sampling techniques in a large family planning center. Acta cytologica 1993;37:457-60.
40. Vierhout ME. The Multispatula; a spatula adjustable to the shape of the Individual cervix. European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology 1987;26:343-7.
41. Vooijs PG, Elias A, van der Graff Y, Veling S. Relationship between the diagnosis of epithelial abnormalities and the composition of cervical smears. Acta cytologica 1985;29:323-8.
42. Vooijs PG, Elias A, van der Graaf Y. The influence of sample takers on the cellular composition of cervical smears. Acta cytologica 1986;30:251-7.
43. Waddell CA, Rollason TP, Amarilli JM, Cullimore J, McConkey CC. The Cervex: an ectocervical sampler. Cytopathology 1990;1:171-81.
44. Wolfendale MR, Howe-Guest R, Usherwood M, Draper GJ. Controlled trial of a new cervical sampler. British medical journal (Clinical research ed.) 1987;294:33-5.
45. Woodman CJB, Yates M, Williams DR, Ward K, Jordan J, Luesley D. A randomised controlled trial of two cervical spatulas. British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 1991;98:21-4.
46. Johnson N, Bromham D, Welsh R. Should cotton wool buds be used to take endocervical smears. Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 1991;11:215-7.
47. Boon ME, Baak J, Ovierdiep S, Verdonk G. Adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix: an underdiagnosed lesion. Cancer 1981;48:768.
48. Boon ME, de Graaf Goilloud J, Kok L, Olthof P, van Erp E. Efficacy of screening of cervical squamous and adenocarcinoma. The Dutch Experience. Cancer 1987;59(a):862-6.
49. Buntinx, Knottnerus J, Crebolder H, Seegers T, Essed G, Schouten H. Does feed-back improve the quality of cervical smears? a randomised controlled trial. The British journal of general practice: the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 1993;43:194-8.
50. Cecchini S, Ciatto S, Lossa A, Grazzini G, Bartoli D. Effective cytological sampling [letter]. The Lancet 1989;ii:393.
51. Dickersin k, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994;309:1286-91.
52. Doorneward H, Van Der Graaf Y. Contribution of the cytobrush to determining cellular composition of cervical smears. Journal of clinical pathology 1990;43:393-6.
53. Duguid H, Duncan I, Currie J. Screening for intraepithelial neoplasia in Dundee and Angus 1962-81 and its relation to invasive cervical cancer. The Lancet 1985;ii:1053-6.
54. Howe DT, Vincenti AC. Is large loop excision of the transformation zone more accurate than colposcopically directed punch biopsy in the diagnosis of CIN?. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1991;98:588-91.
55. Kivlahan C, Ingram E. Papanicolaou Smears Without endocervical Cells. Acta cytologica 1986;30:258-60.
56. Laverty C, Farnsworth A, Thurloe J, Bowditch R. The reliabilty of a cytological prediction of cervical adenocarcinoma in situ. The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology 1988;28:307-12.
57. Mitchell H, Medley G, Drake M. Quality control measures for cervical cytology laborataries. Acta cytologica 1988;32:288-92.
58. Mitchell H, Medley G. Cytological reporting of cervical abnormalities according to endocervical cell status. British journal of cancer 1993;67:585-88.
59. Quality assurance guidelines for the cervical screening programme. NHSCSP 1996.
60. Parkin D, Nguyen-Dinh Z, Day N. The impact of cervical screening on the incidence of cervical cancer in England and Wales. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 1985;92:150-7.
61. Paterson M, Peel K, Joslin C. Cervical smear histories of 500 women with invasive cancer in Yorkshire. British medical journal (Clinical research ed.) 1984;289:896-8.
62. Rammou-Kinia R, Anagnosttopou I, Gomousa M. Comparison of spatula and non-spatula methods for cervical sampling. Acta cytologica 1989;35:69-75.
63. Rubio C. The false negative smear: the trapping effect of collecting instruments. Obstetrics and gynecology 1977;49(5):576-80.
64. Van der Graaf Y, Voojis PG. False negative rate in cervical pathology. Journal of clinical pathology 1987;40:438-42.
65. Walton R. Cervical screening programmes. Canadian Medical Association journal 1988;127:581-9.
66. Working Party of the Royal College of Pathologists. Achievable standards, benchmarks for reporting, criteria for evaluating cervical pathology. Cytopathology 1995;6:301-3.