Literature DB >> 8942687

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

F Buntinx1, M Brouwers.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic yield of different sampling devices used in cervical screening.
DESIGN: Meta-analysis of randomised and quasi-randomised studies.
SETTING: All randomised and quasi-randomised studies comparing the yield of cytological or histological abnormalities when two or more different sampling devices were used.
SUBJECTS: 85,000 patients included in 29 studies reported in 28 papers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pooled relative risk and 95% confidence interval of the yield of mild dysplasia or worse in smears recovered by each sampling method versus each other method with which it was compared; sensitivity or positive predictive value, or both, of cytological versus histological results in six studies from which sufficient data were available.
RESULTS: There were no substantial differences in the yield of cytological abnormalities between the Ayre spatula, the Cytobrush, and the cotton swab used alone. There were also no substantial differences in the yield of cytological abnormalities between the extended tip spatula, the Ayre spatula combined with the Cytobrush or cotton swab, or the Cervex brush. The Ayre spatula, Cytobruah, or cotton swab used alone generally performed significantly worse than the combinations, the extended tip spatula, or the Cervex brush. There were no substantial differences in sensitivity or positive predictive value between the sampling methods.
CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of either the extended tip spatula, a combination of any spatula plus the Cytobrush or cotton swab, or the Cervex brush for cervical screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8942687      PMCID: PMC2352737          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.313.7068.1285

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  50 in total

1.  A randomized comparative trial of the performance of the Ayre and the Armovical cervical spatulae.

Authors:  W Bounds; C Grubb; N Metaxas; M Vessey
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1976-12

2.  Cervical smears following laser treatment. Comparison of Cervex brush versus Cytobrush-Ayre spatula sampling.

Authors:  A Szarewski; J Cuzick; A Singer
Journal:  Acta Cytol       Date:  1991 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.319

3.  Evaluation of two simultaneously obtained cervical cytological smears.

Authors:  A Sedlis; A T Walters; H Balin; A Hontz; L Lo Sciuto
Journal:  Acta Cytol       Date:  1974 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.319

4.  A randomized trial of three methods of obtaining Papanicolaou smears.

Authors:  H E Fokke; C M Salvatore; M E Schipper; O P Bleker
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 2.435

5.  [The Cytobrush and Ayre spatula in taking cervical-vaginal specimens].

Authors:  E Struzziero; M Corbo
Journal:  Minerva Ginecol       Date:  1994-10

6.  Comparison of four cytologic sampling techniques in a large family planning center.

Authors:  A Szarewski; G Curran; R Edwards; J Cuzick; G Kocjan; W Bounds; J Guillebaud
Journal:  Acta Cytol       Date:  1993 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.319

7.  Simultaneous sampling of the endocervix and ectocervix using the profile brush.

Authors:  J C Longfield; R N Grimshaw; J M Monaghan
Journal:  Acta Cytol       Date:  1993 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.319

8.  The effect of different sampling devices on the presence of endocervical cells in cervical smears. A systematic literature review.

Authors:  F Buntinx; J A Knottnerus; J André; H F Crebolder; G G Essed
Journal:  Eur J Cancer Prev       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 2.497

9.  Which cervical sampler? A comparison of four methods.

Authors:  K S Metcalf; J Sutton; M D Moloney; L A Brown; K R Peel; A Baines
Journal:  Cytopathology       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 2.073

10.  Cervical cytology. Increased sensitivity with a second cervical smear.

Authors:  D A Luthy; R M Briggs; A Buyco; A Eschenbach
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1978-06       Impact factor: 7.661

View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  Evaluation of diagnostic procedures.

Authors:  J André Knottnerus; Chris van Weel; Jean W M Muris
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-02-23

Review 2.  How can we develop a cost-effective quality cervical screening programme?

Authors:  Sue Wilson; Helen Lester
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  [Use of the endocervical brush for taking a cervical smear].

Authors:  R Moreno Mira; J Cartanya Benet; C Serra Más; V Bonet Serra
Journal:  Aten Primaria       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 1.137

4.  Cervical sampling devices.

Authors:  P Sasieni
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-11-23

5.  Comparison of nylon-flocked swab and Dacron swab cytology for anal HSIL detection in transgender women and gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men.

Authors:  Dorothy J Wiley; Hilary K Hsu; Martha A Ganser; Jenny Brook; David A Elashoff; Matthew G Moran; Stephen A Young; Nancy E Joste; Ronald Mitsuyasu; Teresa M Darragh; David H Morris; Otoniel M Martínez-Maza; Roger Detels; Jian Yu Rao; Robert K Bolan; Eric T Shigeno; Ernesto Rodriguez
Journal:  Cancer Cytopathol       Date:  2019-03-26       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Frequency of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia following large loop excision of the transformation zone.

Authors:  G Hulman; C J Pickles; C A Gie; F M Dowling; P J Stocks; R Dixon
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 3.411

7.  Effectiveness of national cervical cancer screening programme in Taiwan: 12-year experiences.

Authors:  Y-Y Chen; S-L You; C-A Chen; L-Y Shih; S-L Koong; K-Y Chao; M-L Hsiao; C-Y Hsieh; C-J Chen
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-06-16       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Comparison of the efficacy of the cervex brush and the extended-tip wooden spatula with conventional cytology: a longitudinal study.

Authors:  Caroline J Whitaker; Elaine C Stamp; William Young; Lesley A Greenwood
Journal:  Cytojournal       Date:  2009-01-19       Impact factor: 2.091

9.  Collection of the BD SurePath Pap Test with a broom device plus endocervical brush improves disease detection when compared to the broom device alone or the spatula plus endocervical brush combination.

Authors:  Sharon Davis-Devine; Sarah J Day; Amy Anderson; Ashley French; Darcy Madison-Henness; Naomi Mohar; Danielle Tansy; Adarsh Hiremath; Jeffrey A Douglas; Gregory G Freund
Journal:  Cytojournal       Date:  2008-02-12       Impact factor: 2.091

10.  Additional collection devices used in conjunction with the SurePath Liquid-Based Pap Test broom device do not enhance diagnostic utility.

Authors:  Sarah J Day; Darla L O'Shaughnessy; Jason C O'Connor; Gregory G Freund
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2004-09-13       Impact factor: 2.809

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.