 |
|
Cervical Cancer ScreeningIssues of Collection Tools and Reporting
Arch Fam Med. 1993;2(3):261-263.
References
Article references have been provided for searching and linking. Additional reference information may be available in the article PDF.
| |
1. Crouse BS, Elliott BA, Nesin N. Clinical follow-up of cervical sampling with the Ayre spatula and Zelsmyr cytobrush. Arch Fam Med. 1993;2:145-148.
FREE FULL TEXT
2. Melnikow J, Sierk A, Flocke S, Carbonetto C. Does the system of Papanicolaou test nomenclature affect the rate of referral for colposcopy? a survey of family physicians. Arch Fam Med. 1993;3:253-258.
3. Bangle R, Berger M, Levin M. Variation in the morphogenesis of squamous carcinoma of the cervix. Cancer. 1963;16:1151-1159.
PUBMED
4. Boyd JT, Doll R. A study of the actiology of carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Br J Cancer. 1964;3:419-434.
5. Miller EM, vanHaam E. Symposium: advantages and disadvantages of various techniques of obtaining material for routine cytological examination. Acta Cytol. 1960;4:4236-4237.
6. Nieburgs HE. A comparative study of different techniques for the diagnosis of cervical carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1956;72:511-515.
PUBMED
7. Bichenback W, Soosts HJ. Material obtained by three techniques: (a) vaginal smears, (b) cervical smears and (c) endocervical smears. Acta Cytol. 1960;4:252-256.
8. Shingleton HM, Gore H, Straughn JM, Austin JM, Littleton HJ. The contribution of endocervical smears to cervical cancer detection. Acta Cytol. 1975;19:261-264.
PUBMED
9. Elias A, Linthorst G, Bekker B, Vooijs PG. The significance of endocervical cells in the diagnosis of epithelial changes. Acta Cytol. 1983;27:225-229.
PUBMED
10. Vooijs PG, Elias A, van der Graf Y, Veiling S. Relationship between the diagnosis of epithelial abnormalities and the composition of cervical smears. Acta Cytol. 1985;29:323-328.
PUBMED
11. Rylander E. Negative smears in women developing invasive cervical cancer. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1977;56:115-118.
PUBMED
12. Kristensen GB, Skyggebjerg KD, Holund B, Holm K, Hansen MK. Analysis of cervical smears obtained within three years of the diagnosis of invasive cervical cancer. Acta Cytol. 1991;35:47-50.
PUBMED
13. Klinkhammer P JJM, Vooijs GP, de Haan AFJ. Intraobserver and interobserver variability in the quality assessment of cervical smears. Acta Cytol. 1989;33:215-218.
PUBMED
14. Kwikkel HJ, Quaak MJ, deWith C. Predictive value of the abnormal Pap smear: a retrospective analysis of error rates. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1986;21:101-112.
PUBMED
15. Kivlahan C, Ingram E. Papanicolaou smears without endocervical smears: are they inadequate? Acta Cytol. 1986;30:258-260.
PUBMED
16. Mitchell H, Medley G. Longitudinal study of women with negative cervical smears according to endocervical status. Lancet. 1991;337:265-267.
PUBMED
17. National Cancer Institute Workshop. The 1988 Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytological diagnoses. JAMA. 1989;262:931-934.
FREE FULL TEXT
18. Davey DD, Nielson ML, Rosenstock W, Kline TS. Terminology and specimen adequacy of cervicovaginal cytology: the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program experience. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1992;116:903-907.
PUBMED
19. Ayanian JZ, Berwick DM. Do physicians have a bias toward action? a classic study revisited. Med Decis Making. 1991;11:154-158.
FREE FULL TEXT
20. Miller AB, Anderson G, Brisson J, et al. Report of a national workshop on screening for cancer of the cervix. Can Med Assoc J. 1991;145:1301-1325.
PUBMED
21. Miller AB, Knight J, Narod S. The natural history of cancer of the cervix, and the implications for screening policy. In: Miller AB, Chamberlain J, Day, NE, et al, eds. Cancer Screening. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1991:141-152. 22. National Cancer Institute Workshop. The revised Bethesda system for reporting cervical/ vaginal cytologic diagnoses: report of the 1991 Bethesda workshop. Acta Cytol. 1992;36:273-275.
PUBMED
|
