SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, Martin-Hirsch P, Siebers AG, Bulten J. Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:16777.
  • 2
    Ronco G, Cuzick J, Pierotti P, Cariaggi MP, Dalla PP, Naldoni C, et al. Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2007;335:28.
  • 3
    Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Grefte JM, Massuger LF, Vedder JE, Beijers-Broos A, et al. Comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology for detection of cervical cancer precursors: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009;302:175764.
  • 4
    Arbyn M, Abarca M. Liquid based cytology: An effective Alternative for the Conventional Pap Smear to Detect Cervical Cancer Precursors? Systematic review and meta-analysis. [IPH/EPI - Reports Nr. 2003-010], Brussels: Scientific Institute of Public Health, 2006.1201
  • 5
    Alsharif M, McKeon DM, Gulbahce HE, Savik K, Pambuccian SE. Unsatisfactory SurePath liquid-based Papanicolaou tests: causes and significance. Cancer Cytopathol 2009;117:1526.
  • 6
    Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Arbyn M, Raifu AO, Massuger LF, Bulten J. Cytologic detection of cervical abnormalities using liquid-based compared with conventional cytology: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112:132734.
  • 7
    Arbyn M, Herbert A, Schenck U, Nieminen P, Jordan J, McGoogan E, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: recommendations for collecting samples for conventional and liquid-based cytology. Cytopathology 2007;18:1339.
  • 8
    Bulk S, van Kemenade FJ, Rozendaal L, Meijer CJ. The Dutch CISOE-A framework for cytology reporting increases efficacy of screening upon standardisation since 1996. J Clin Pathol 2004;57:38893.
  • 9
    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;287:21149.
  • 10
    Ronco G, Brezzi S, Carozzi F, Dalla PP, Giorgi-Rossi P, Minucci D, et al. The New Technologies for Cervical Cancer Screening randomised controlled trial. An overview of results during the first phase of recruitment. Gynecol Oncol 2007;107(1 Suppl 1):S2302.
  • 11
    Kurman RJ, Malkasian GD Jr, Sedlis A, Solomon D. From Papanicolaou to Bethesda: the rationale for a new cervical cytologic classification. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:77982.
  • 12
    Cochran W. The contribution of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics 1954;10:10129.
  • 13
    Ronco G, van BM, Becker N, Chil A, Fender M, Giubilato P, et al. Process performance of cervical screening programmes in Europe. Eur J Cancer 2009;45:265970.
  • 14
    Davey DD, Cox JT, Austin RM, Birdsong G, Colgan TJ, Howell LP, et al. Cervical cytology specimen adequacy: patient management guidelines and optimizing specimen collection. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2008;12:7181.
  • 15
    Jordan J, Arbyn M, Martin-Hirsch P, Schenck U, Baldauf J-J, Da Silva D, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in cervical cancer screening: recommendations for clinical management of abnormal cervical cytology, part 1. Cytopathology 2008;19:34254.