Literature DB >> 2588917

Analysis of five sampling methods for the preparation of cervical smears.

M E Boon1, J C de Graaff Guilloud, W J Rietveld.   

Abstract

The quality of the cervical smear, a decisive factor in the efficacy of population screening, can depend on the sampling method utilized. An analysis was made of the performance of five sample takers in a screening program, each of whom had made approximately 5,000 smears, and of the five sampling methods each had used: spatula alone (method A), Cytobrush plus spatula (method B), Cytopick (method C), cotton swab plus spatula (method D) and Cervex brush (method E). The differences between the sample takers and the sampling methods were significant in both the detection of grade III cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN III) (P less than .01) and in the production of smears containing endocervical cells (EC+) (P less than .018). The data obtained firmly establish the importance of the presence of endocervical cells for smear adequacy. The results of this study indicate that (1) method B (Cytobrush plus spatula) and method C (Cytopick) give superior results in the preparation of EC+ smears and in the detection of CIN III and thus should be used in population screening programs, and (2) methods A and D should not be used for cervical cytologic sampling in such programs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2588917

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Cytol        ISSN: 0001-5547            Impact factor:   2.319


  15 in total

1.  A comparison of four cytological sampling techniques in a genitourinary medicine clinic.

Authors:  A Szarewski; J Cuzick; M Nayagam; R N Thin
Journal:  Genitourin Med       Date:  1990-12

2.  Cervical samplers.

Authors: 
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1991-08-03

3.  Adequacy of cervical cytology sampling with the Cervex brush and the Aylesbury spatula: a population based randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  P Dey; S Collins; M Desai; C Woodman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-09-21

4.  [Not Available].

Authors:  R Bonneau
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 3.275

5.  Relation between sampling device and detection of abnormality in cervical smears: a meta-analysis of randomised and quasi-randomised studies.

Authors:  F Buntinx; M Brouwers
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-11-23

6.  Cytological early detection of cervical carcinoma: possibilities and limitations. Analysis of failures.

Authors:  G Möbius
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 4.553

7.  Comparison of 2 anal cytology protocols to predict high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia.

Authors:  Dorothy JoAnn Wiley; Hilary Hsu; Robert Bolan; Alen Voskanian; David Elashoff; Stephen Young; Ruvy Dayrit; Provaboti Barman; Katherine DeAzambuja; Emmanuel V Masongsong; Otoniel Martínez-Maza; Roger Detels
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.925

Review 8.  Cervical cancer prevention--cervical screening: science in evolution.

Authors:  Mahboobeh Safaeian; Diane Solomon; Philip E Castle
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.844

9.  Improved endocervical sampling with the Cytobrush.

Authors:  A Chalvardjian; W G De Marchi; V Bell; R Nishikawa
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1991-02-01       Impact factor: 8.262

10.  Sampling endocervical cells on cervical smears: a comparison of two instruments used in general practice. Cumbrian Practice Research Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 5.386

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.