• 1
    Klinkhamer PJJM, Voojis GP, de Hann AFJ. Intraobserver and interobserver variability in the diagnosis of epithelial abnormalities in cervical smears. Acta Cytol. 1988; 32: 794800.
  • 2
    Renshaw AA, Lee KR, Granter SR. Use of statistical analysis of cytologic interpretation to determine the causes of interobserver disagreement and in quality improvement. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 1997; 81: 212219.
  • 3
    Young NA, Naryshkin S, Atkinson BF, et al. Interobserver variability of cervical smears with squamous-cell abnormalities: a Philadelphia study. Diagn Cytopathol. 1994; 11: 352357.
  • 4
    Yobs AR, Swanson RA, Lamotte LC. Laboratory reliability of the Papanicolaou smear. Obstet Gynecol. 1985; 65: 235244.
  • 5
    Cocchi V, Carretti D, Fanti S, et al. Intralaboratory quality assurance in cervical/vaginal cytology: evaluation of intercytologist diagnostic reproducibility. Diagn Cytopathol. 1997; 16: 8792.
  • 6
    Cibas ES, Dean B, Maffeo N, Allred EN. Quality assurance in gynecologic cytology. The value of cytotechnologist-cytopathologist discrepancy logs. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001; 115: 512516.
  • 7
    Gupta DK, Komaromy-Hilller G, Rab SS, Nath ME. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the cytologic diagnosis of normal and abnormal metaplastic cells in pap smears. Acta Cytol. 2001; 45: 697703.
  • 8
    Stoler MH, Schiffman M. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations. Realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL triage study. JAMA. 2001; 285: 15001505.
  • 9
    Fitzgibbons PL, Austin RM. Expert review of histologic slides and Papanicolaou tests in the context of litigation or potential litigation. Surgical Pathology Committee and Cytopathology Committee of the College of American Pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000; 124: 17171719.
  • 10
    Renshaw AA, Lezon KM, Wilbur DC. The human false negative rate of rescreening in a two arm prospective clinical trial. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2001; 93: 106110.
  • 11
    Hatem F, Wilbur DC. High grade squamous cervical lesions following negative Papanicolaou smears: false negative cervical cytology or rapid progression. Diagn Cytopathol. 1995; 12: 135141.
  • 12
    Sherman ME, Kelly D. High grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and invasive carcinoma following the report of three negative Papanicolaou smears: screening failure or rapid progression? Mod Pathol. 1992; 5: 337342.
  • 13
    Jones BA, Davey DD. Quality management in gynecologic cytology using interlaboratory comparison. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000; 124: 672681.
  • 14
    Proposed guidelines for primary screening instruments for gynecologic cytology: developed by the Intersociety Working Group for Cytology Technologies. Acta Cytol 1997; 41: 924934.
  • 15
    Miller WC. Bias in discrepant analysis: when two wrongs don't make a right. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51: 219231.
  • 16
    Renshaw AA. Estimating the percentage of Papanicolaou smears that can be reproducibly identified. Modeling pap smear interpretation based on multiple blinded rescreenings. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2001; 93: 241245.
  • 17
    Renshaw AA. An accurate and precise methodology for routine determination of the false negative rate of Pap smear screening. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2001; 93: 8692.
  • 18
    Davey DD, Naryshkin S, Nielsen ML, Kline TS. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: interlaboratory comparison and quality assurance monitors. Diagn Cytopathol. 1994; 11: 390396.
  • 19
    Davey DD, Nielsen ML, Naryshkin S, Robb JA, Cohen T, Kline TS. Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Current laboratory practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists interlaboratory comparison program in cervicovaginal cytology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1996; 120: 440444.
  • 20
    College of American Pathologists. Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Gynecologic Cytopathology (PAP) Year End Summary Report. Chicago: College of American Pathologists, 2000.
  • 21
    O'Sullivan JP, Chapman PA, Jenkins L, Smith R. Characteristics of high grade dyskaryotic cervical smears likely to be missed on rapid rescreening. Acta Cytol. 2000; 44: 3740.
  • 22
    O'Sullivan JP, A'Hern RP, Chapman PA, et al. A case-control study of true positive versus false negative smears in women with CIN 3 [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 1997; 41: 1543.
  • 23
    Mitchell H, Medley G. Differences between Papanicolaou smears with correct and incorrect diagnoses. Cytopathology. 1995; 6: 368375.
  • 24
    Hindman WM. An effective quality control program for the cytology laboratory. Acta Cytol. 1976; 20: 233238.
  • 25
    Hindman WM. A proposal for quality control in gynecologic cytology. Acta Cytol. 1987; 31: 384385.
  • 26
    Joste NE, Crum CP, Cibas ES. Cytologic/histologic correlation for quality control in cervicovaginal cytology. Am J Clin Pathol. 1995; 103: 3234.
  • 27
    Hutchinson ML, Zahniser DJ, Sherman ME, et al. Utility of liquid-based cytology for cervical carcinoma screening. Results of a population-based study conducted in a region of Costa Rica with a high incidence of cervical carcinoma. Cancer. 1999; 87: 4855.
  • 28
    Belinson J, Qiao YL, Pretorius R, et al. Shanxi province cervical cancer screening study: a cross-sectional comparative trial of multiple techniques to detect cervical neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol. 2001; 83: 439444.
  • 29
    Coppelson LW, Brown B. Estimation of the screening error rate from the observed detection rates in repeated cervical cytology. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1974; 119: 953958.
  • 30
    Yobs AR, Plott AE, Hicklin MD, et al. Retrospective evaluation of gynecologic cytodiagnosis II. Interlaboratory reproducibility as shown in rescreening large consecutive samples of reported cases. Acta Cytol. 1987; 31: 900910.
  • 31
    Keenlyside RA, Collins CL, Hancock JS, et al. Do proficiency test results correlate with the work performance of screeners who screen Papanicolaou smears? Am J Clin Pathol. 1999; 112: 769776.
  • 32
    Wilbur DC, Prey MU, Miller WM, Pawlick GF, Colgan FJ, Taylor DD. Detection of high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and tumors using the Autopap system. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 1999; 1999: 87.
  • 33
    Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG, Corkill ME, Mcintosh KM, Inhorn SL. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 90: 278284.
  • 34
    Roberts JM, Gurley AM, Thurloe JK, Bowditch R, Laverty CRA. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Pap test as an adjunct to the conventional Pap smear. Med J Aust. 1997; 167: 466469.
  • 35
    Friedell GH. Addendum. In: SommersSC, editor. Genital and mammary pathology decennial. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1975: 4953.
  • 36
    Agency for Health Care Policy. Evaluation of cervical cytology. Rockville MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, 1999.
  • 37
    Baldauf JJ, Dreyfus M, Lehmann M, Ritter J, Phillippe E. Cervical cancer screening with cervicography and cytology. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1995; 58: 3339.
  • 38
    Solomon D, Schiffman M, Tarone R. Comparison of three management strategies for patients with atypical squamous cells of undermined significance: baseline results from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001; 93: 293299.