Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Pap smear collection devices: Technical, clinical, diagnostic, and legal considerations associated with their use

1992; Wiley; Volume: 8; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1002/dc.2840080509

8755-1039

J Schumann, Dennis M. O’Connor, Jamie L. Covell, Shirley E. Greening,

Ethics in Clinical Research

Diagnostic CytopathologyVolume 8, Issue 5 p. 492-503 Cytotechnology Forum Pap smear collection devices: Technical, clinical, diagnostic, and legal considerations associated with their use Janet L. Schumann B.A., C.T., (A.S.C.P.), Corresponding Author Janet L. Schumann B.A., C.T., (A.S.C.P.) Department of Pathology, 5B2.22 WC Mackenzie Health Sciences Center, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, CanadaSchumann Cytology Laboratories, Inc., 2180E 4500 South, Suite 290, Salt Lake City, UT 84117Search for more papers by this authorDennis M. O'Connor M.D., Col., M.C., U.S.A., Dennis M. O'Connor M.D., Col., M.C., U.S.A. Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and of Pathology, F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine, Bethesda, MDSearch for more papers by this authorJamie L. Covell B.S., C.T. (A.S.C.P.), Jamie L. Covell B.S., C.T. (A.S.C.P.) Department of Pathology, University of Virginia Health Sciences Center, Charlottesville, VASearch for more papers by this authorShirley E. Greening M.S., J.D., C.T. (A.S.C.P.), C.F.I.A.C., Shirley E. Greening M.S., J.D., C.T. (A.S.C.P.), C.F.I.A.C. Department of Laboratory Sciences, College of Allied Health Sciences, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PASearch for more papers by this author Janet L. Schumann B.A., C.T., (A.S.C.P.), Corresponding Author Janet L. Schumann B.A., C.T., (A.S.C.P.) Department of Pathology, 5B2.22 WC Mackenzie Health Sciences Center, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, CanadaSchumann Cytology Laboratories, Inc., 2180E 4500 South, Suite 290, Salt Lake City, UT 84117Search for more papers by this authorDennis M. O'Connor M.D., Col., M.C., U.S.A., Dennis M. O'Connor M.D., Col., M.C., U.S.A. Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and of Pathology, F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine, Bethesda, MDSearch for more papers by this authorJamie L. Covell B.S., C.T. (A.S.C.P.), Jamie L. Covell B.S., C.T. (A.S.C.P.) Department of Pathology, University of Virginia Health Sciences Center, Charlottesville, VASearch for more papers by this authorShirley E. Greening M.S., J.D., C.T. (A.S.C.P.), C.F.I.A.C., Shirley E. Greening M.S., J.D., C.T. (A.S.C.P.), C.F.I.A.C. Department of Laboratory Sciences, College of Allied Health Sciences, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PASearch for more papers by this author First published: September 1992 https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.2840080509Citations: 11AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat References 1 Greening SE. The adequate Papanicolaou smear revisited. Diagn Cytopathol 1985; 1: 55–58. 2 New Bethesda system for reporting results of smears of uterine cervix. JNCI 1990; 82: 988–991. 3 Gilbert FE, Hicklin MD, Inhorn SL, et al. Standards of adequacy of cytologic examination of the female genital tract. Am J Clin Pathol 1974; 61: 285–286. 4 Nieburg HE. A comparative study of different techniques for the diagnosis of cervical carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1956; 72: 511. 5 Buntix F, Boon ME, Becks, et al. Comparison of cytobrush sampling and combined cytobrush-spatula sampling of the uterine cervix. Acta Cytol (Baltimore) 1991; 35: 64–68. 6 Stock RJ, Thurwood AL, Passmore A. A comparison between the Accu-Pap device and the extended tip wooden Ayre spatula for cervical cytology sampling. Acta Cytol (Baltimore) 1988; 32: 307–310. 7 Fluhman CF. The squamocolumnar transitional zone of the cervix uteri. Obstet Gynecol 1959; 14: 133–148. 8 Koss LG. Diagnostic cytopathology and its histopathologic bases, 3rd Ed. Lippincott, 1979: 1167–1168. 9 Hutchinson ML, Cassin CM, Ball HG. Efficacy of an automated preparation device for cervical cytology. Am J Clin Pathol 1991; 96: 300–305. 10 Ayre JE. Selective cytology smears for diagnosis of cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1947; 53: 609–617. 11 Buntix F, Boon ME, Beck S, et al. Comparison of Cytobrush sampling, spatula sampling and combined Cytobrush-spatula sampling of the uterine cervix. Acta Cytol (Baltimore) 1991; 35: 64–68. 12 Rubio CA. The false negative smear: II. The trapping effect of collecting instruments. Obstet Gynecol 1977; 576–580. 13 Zasalay Rammou-Kinia R, Agnostopoulou I, Gromousa M. Comparison of spatula and non spatula methods for cervical sampling. Acta Cytol (Baltimore) 1991; 35: 69–75. 14 Boon ME, Zeppa P, Ouwerkerk-Noordam E, et al. Exploiting the “toothpick effect” of the Cytobrush by plastic embedding of cervical samples. Acta Cytol (Baltimore) 1991; 35 (1): 57–63. 15 Bunttix F, Boon ME, Beck S, et al. Comparison of Cytobrush sampling, spatula sampling and combined Cytobrush-spatula sampling of the uterine cervix. Acta Cytol (Baltimore) 1991; 35 (1): 64–68. 16 Swarewski A, Cuzick J, Singer A. Cervical smear following laser treatment. Comparison of Cervex-Brush verses Cytobrush-Ayre spatula sampling. Acta Cytol (Baltimore) 1991; 35 (1): 76–78. 17 Papanicolaou GN, Traut HF. Diagnosis of uterine cancer by the vaginal smear. New York: The Commonwealth Fund, 1943. 18 Meigs JV, Grabarnt RM, Fremont-Smith M, et al. The value of the vaginal smear in the diagnosis of uterine cancer. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1943; 77: 449. 19 Ayre JE. Selective cytology smears for diagnosis of cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1947; 53: 609–617. 20 Anderson WAD, Gunn SA. The efficacy of a single cytology smear in the detection of cancer of the cervix. Cancer 1963; 13: 92. 21 Kivlahan C, Ingram E. Papanicolaou smear without endocervical cells. Are they adequate? Acta Cytol (Baltimore) 1985; 30: 258–260. 22 Reichart RM, Willant HW. Influence of cell collection techniques upon cytological diagnosis. Cancer 1965; 18: 1974. 23 Gondos B, Marshall D, Ostergard DR. Endocervical cells in cervical smears. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1972; 114: 833. 24 Shingleton DM, Gore H, Straughn JM, et al. The contributions of endocervical smears to cervical cancer detection. Acta Cytol (Baltimore) 1975; 19: 261. 25 Shen JT, Nalick RH, Schlaeith JB, et al. Efficacy of cotton tipped applicators for obtaining cells from the uterine cervix for Papanicolaou smears. Acta Cytol (Baltimore) 1984; 28: 541. 26 Boon ME, Alons-van Kordelaar JJM, Reitveld-Scheffers PEM. Consequences of the introduction of combined spatula and cytobrush sampling for cervical cytology. Acta Cytol (Baltimore) 1986; 30: 264–70. 27 Alons-von Kordelaar JJM, Boon ME. Diagnostic accuracy of squamous cervical lesions studied in spatula-cytobrush smears. Acta Cytol (Baltimore) 1988; 32: 801. 28 Selvaggi SM. Spatula/cytobrush vs spatula/cotton swab detection of cervical condylomatous lesions. J Reprod Med 1989; 34: 629. 29 Kirstensen GB, Jensen LK, Ejersbo D, et al. The efficiency of the cytobrush and cotton swab in obtaining endocervical cells in smears taken after conization of the cervix. Arch Gynecol Obstet 1989; 246: 207. 30 vanErp EMJ, Dersjant-Rooda MC, Arentz NPW, et al. Should the cytobrush be used in routine screening for cervical pathology? Int J Gynecol Obstet 1989; 30: 139. 31 Boon ME, de Graff, Guelloud JC, Rietveld WJ. Analysis of five sampling methods for the preparation of cervical smears. Acta Cytol (Baltimore) 1988; 33: 843. 32 Covell JL, Tabbarah S. Evaluation of glandular atypias in endocervical brushings. ASCP Check Sample Program, Cytopathology II, No CII 91–2. 33 Covell JL, Frierson HF. Intraepithelial neoplasia mimicking microinvasive squamous cell carcinoma in endocervical brushings (submitted for publication). 34 Frierson HF, Covell JL, Anderson WA. Radiation changes in endocervical cells in brush specimens. Diagn Cytopathol 1990; 6: 243–247. Citing Literature Volume8, Issue5September 1992Pages 492-503 ReferencesRelatedInformation