SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • 1
    Birdsong G, Davey D, Darraugh T, Elgert P, Henry M. Specimen Adequacy. In: SolomonD, NayurR, eds. The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2004.
  • 2
    Cox JT. ASCCP practice guidelines: management issues related to quality of the smear. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 1997; 1: 100-106.
  • 3
    Bentz JS, Rowe LR, Gopez EV, Marshall CJ. The unsatisfactory ThinPrep Pap test: Missed opportunity for disease detection? Am J Clin Pathol. 2002; 117: 457-463.
  • 4
    Chacho MS, Mattie ME, Schwartz PE. Cytohistologic correlation rates between conventional Papanicolaou smears and ThinPrep cervical cytology: A comparison. Cancer Cytopathol. 2003; 99: 135-140.
  • 5
    Islam S, West AM, Saboorian MJ, Ashfaq R. Cancer. 2004; 102: 67-73.
  • 6
    Belinson JL, Pan QJ, Biscotti C, et al. Primary screening with liquid-based cytology in an unscreened population in rural China, with an emphasis on reprocessing unsatisfactory samples. Acta Cytol. 2002; 46: 470-474.
  • 7
    Song LH, Goh EST, Phang LC, Poh WT, Tay SK. Technical aspect of ThinPrep. Singapore Med J. 2000; 41: 575-578.
  • 8
    ThinPrep. (Product Insert). Volume 85193–003 Rev J. Boxborough, MA: Cytyc Corporation; 2001.
  • 9
    TriPath Imaging I. PrepStain System Product Insert. 2004; Doc No. 61CR000021, Rev 4.
  • 10
    Nance KV. Evolution of Pap testing at a community hospital: a ten year experience. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007; 35: 148-153.
  • 11
    McGrath CM, Rowe LR, Gupta PK, Bentz JS. Comparison of cytologic preparations in cervicovaginal cytopathology: Conventional smear vs. ThinPrep vs. AutoCyte PREP. Acta Cytol. 2002; 46: 958.
  • 12
    Fite SK. Impact of converting ThinPrep to SurePath on overall sensitivity and adequacy. Acta Cytol. 2002; 46: 958.
  • 13
    Sweeney BJ, Haq Z, Happel JF, Weinstein B, Schneider D. Comparison of the effectiveness of 2 liquid-based Papanicolaou systems in the handling of adverse limiting factors, such as excessive blood. Cancer. 2006; 108: 27-31.
  • 14
    Linder J, Zahniser D. The ThinPrep Pap test. A review of clinical studies. Acta Cytol. 1997; 41: 30-38.
  • 15
    Lee KR, Ashfaq R, Birdsong GG, et al. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and a fluid-based, thin-layer system for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 90: 278-284.
  • 16
    Bolick DR, Hellman DJ. Laboratory implementation and efficacy assessment of the ThinPrep cervical cancer screening system. Acta Cytol. 1998; 42: 209-213.
  • 17
    Wang TY, Chen HS, Yang YC, Tsou MC. Comparison of fluid-based, thin-layer processing and conventional Papanicolaou methods for uterine cervical cytology. J Formos Med Assoc. 1999; 98: 500-505.
  • 18
    Clark SB, Dawson AE. Invasive squamous cell carcinoma in ThinPrep specimens: diagnostic clues in the cellular pattern. Diagn Cytopathol. 2002; 26: 1-4.
  • 19
    Dalton P, MacDonald S, Boerner S. Acetic acid recovery of gynecologic liquid-based samples of apparent low squamous cellularity. Acta Cytol. 2006; 50: 136-140.
  • 20
    Papillo JL, St John TL, Mahoney PD, et al. Reprocessing of unsatisfactory ThinPrep samples: Procedures to improve specimen adequacy and increase detection of cervical abnormalities. Acta Cytol. 1998; 42: 1246.
  • 21
    BD Surepath Cell Enrichment Process for Liquid-based Pap Test. BD website: http://www.bd.com/tripath/labs/sp_cell_enrich.asp. Accessed June 8, 2010.
  • 22
    The ThinPrep Pap Test: The ThinPrep 2000. ThinPrep website: http://www.thinprep.com/hcp/lab_professionals/imaging_ system/thinprep_2000.html. Accessed June 8, 2010.
  • 23
    Hecht S, Swinehart W, Linder J. Comparison of methods for reprocessing bloody gynecological specimens in PreservCyt solution. Acta Cytol. 2004; 48: 681.