Page 79 - Screening for Cervical Cancer: Systematic Evidence Review
P. 79

References



                              devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis [published erratum appears in
                              Lancet 2000 Jan 29;355(9201):414]. Lancet. 1999;354:1763-1770.

                 28.   The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: revised after the
                              second National Cancer Institute Workshop, April 29-30, 1991. Acta Cytologica.
                              1993;37(2):115-124.


                 29.   Richart RM. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Pathol Annu. 1973;8:301-328.

                 30.   Reagan JW, Fu YS. Histologic types and prognosis of cancers of the uterine cervix. Int J
                              Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1979;5:1015-1020.

                 31.   Nyirjesy I. Atypical or suspicious cervical smears. An aggressive diagnostic approach. J
                              Am Med Assoc. 1972;222:691-693.


                 32.   McCrory DC, Mather DB, Bastian L. Evaluation of Cervical Cytology: Evidence Report
                              Number 5, SummaryAgency for Health Care Policy and Research. Rockville,
                              MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1999.

                 33.   Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, et al. Current Methods of the US Preventive Services
                              Task Force:  A Review of the Process. Am J Prev Med. 2001;2 (3S):21-35.

                 34.   Kainz C, Gitsch G, Heinzl H, Breitenecker G. Incidence of cervical smears indicating
                              dysplasia among Austrian women during the 1980s. Br J Obstet Gynaecol.
                              1995;102:541-544.

                 35.   Gram IT, Macaluso M, Stalsberg H. Incidence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade
                              III, and cancer of the cervix uteri following a negative Pap-smear in an
                              opportunistic screening. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1998;77:228-232.

                 36.   Sawaya GF, Kerlikowske K, Lee NC. When can cervical cancer screening intervals be
                              lengthened?  Outcomes following 1, 2, and 3 or more normal cervical smears.
                              (unpublished data).

                 37.   Forsmo S, Jacobsen BK, Stalsberg H. Cervical neoplasia in pap smears: risk of cervical
                              intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN) after negative or no prior smears in a population
                              without a mass screening programme. Int J Epidemiol. 1996;25:53-58.

                 38.   Gustafsson L, Sparen P, Gustafsson M, et al. Low efficiency of cytologic screening for
                              cancer in situ of the cervix in older women. Int J Cancer. 1995;63:804-809.

                 39.   Cruickshank ME, Angus V, Kelly M, McPhee S, Kitchener HC. The case for stopping
                              cervical screening at age 50.  Brit J  Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104:586-589.

                 40.   Lawson HW, Lee NC, Thames SF, Henson R, Miller DS. Cervical cancer screening
                              among low-income women: results of a national screening program, 1991-1995.
                              Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92:745-752.





                                                             85
   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84