SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Buntinx F, Knottnerus JA, Crebolder H, Essed G, Schouten H. Relation between quality of cervical smears and probability of abnormal results. BMJ 1992;304:1224.
  • 2
    BSCC. How to Take a Cervical Smear (3rd edition). Uxbridge: British Society of Clinical Cytology; 2003. Video and booklet available at: http://www.clinicalcytology.co.uk (Last accessed on 26 April 2007).
  • 3
    Arbyn M (ed.). Flemish Working Party Sampling. A technical guideline: collection of adequate Pap smears of the uterine cervix. Scientific Institute of Public Health 2000; IPH/EPI-REPORTS 4, 153 Available from http://www.iph.fgov.be/epidemio/epinl/cervixnl/s_eng1.pdf.
  • 4
    Arbyn M, Dillner J, Schenck U et al. Chapter 3 Methods for Screening and Diagnosis. In: European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening, ArbynM, AnttilaA, JordanJ et al. , (eds). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2007: (in press).
  • 5
    Burghardt E. Latest aspects of precancerous lesions in squamous and columnar epithelium of the cervix. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1970;8:57380.
  • 6
    Burghardt E, Pickel H, Girardi F. Colposcopy Cervical Pathology. 3rd revised and enlarged edn. Stuttgart, New York: Georg Thieme Verlag; 1998: pp. 1323.
  • 7
    Boon ME, Suurmeijer AJH. The Pap Smear. 2nd edn. Leiden: Coulomb Press Leyden; 1993.
  • 8
    Vooijs PG, Elias A, Van der Graaf Y, Veling S. Relationship between the diagnosis of epithelial abnormalities and the composition of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1985;29:3238.
  • 9
    Bos AB, Van Ballegooijen M, Van den Akker van Marle ME et al. Endocervical status is not predictive of the incidence of cervical cancer in the years after negative smears. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;115:8515.
  • 10
    Mitchell HS. Longitudinal analysis of histologic high-grade disease after negative cervical cytology according to endocervical status. Cancer 2001;93:23740.
  • 11
    Siebers AG, De Leeuw H, Verbeek AL, Hanselaar AG. Prevalence of squamous abnormalities in women with a recent smear without endocervical cells is lower as compared to women with smears with endocervical cells. Cytopathology 2003;14:5865.
  • 12
    Buntinx F, Brouwers M. Relation between sampling device and detection of abnormality in cervical smears: a meta-analysis of randomised and quasi-randomised studies. BMJ 1996;313:128590.
  • 13
    Martin-Hirsch P, Lilford R, Jarvis G, Kitcherner HC. Efficacy of cervical-smear collection devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 1999;354:176370.
  • 14
    NHSCSP. Taking Samples for Cervical Screening a Resource Pack for Trainers. Sheffield: National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme, NHSCSP Publication No. 23 2006: 147. Available at: http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk.
  • 15
    NCCLS. Papanicolaou Technique. Approved Guideline. Pennsylvania: National Comity for Clinical Laboratory Standards, NCCLS Document GP15-A, vol 14 N 8 (video); 1994.
  • 16
    Herbert A, Bergeron C, Wiener H et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: recommendations for cervical cytology terminology. Cytopathology 2007;(in press).
  • 17
    Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:21149.
  • 18
    Solomon D, Nayar R. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical cytology: definitions, criteria and explanatory notes. 2nd edn. New York: Springer; 2004: 1191.