Page 83 - Screening for Cervical Cancer: Systematic Evidence Review
P. 83

References



                              do we know what works and why? J Adv Nurs. 1998;28:563-570.

                 79.   Somerset M, Baxter K, Wilkinson C, Peters TJ.   Mildy dyskaryotic smear results:  does
                              it matter what women know? Int J Fam Pract. 1998;15:537-542.

                 80.   Schofield MJ, Sanson-Fisher R, Halpin S, Redman S. Notification and follow-up of Pap
                              test results:  current practice and women's preferences. Prev Med. 1994;23:276-
                              283.

                 81.   Gustafsson L, Sparen P, Gustafsson M, Wilander E, Bergstrom R, Adami HO. Efficiency
                              of organised and opportunistic cytological screening for cancer in situ of the
                              cervix. Br J Cancer. 1995;72:498-505.

                 82.   Mitchell H, Medley G, Higgins V. An audit of the women who died during 1994 from
                              cancer of the cervix in Victoria, Australia. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol.
                              1996;36:73-76.

                 83.   Colgan TJ, Patten SFJr, Lee JS. A clinical trial of the AutoPap 300 QC system for quality
                              control of cervicovaginal cytology in the clinical laboratory. Acta Cytol.
                              1995;39:1191-1198.

                 84.   Patten SFJ, Lee JS, Wilbur DC, et al. The AutoPap 300 QC System multicenter clinical
                              trials for use in quality control rescreening of cervical smears: II. Prospective and
                              archival sensitivity studies. Cancer. 1997;81:343-347.


                 85.   Lee JS, Kuan L, Oh S, Patten FW, Wilbur DC. A feasibility study of the AutoPap system
                              location-guided screening. Acta Cytologica. 1998;42:221-226.


                 86.   Stevens MW, Milne AJ, James KA, Brancheau D, Ellison D, Kuan L. Effectiveness of
                              automated cervical cytology rescreening using the AutoPap 300 QC System.
                              Diagn Cytopathol. 1997;16:505-512.

                 87.   Wilbur DC, Bonfiglio TA, Rutkowski MA, et al. Sensitivity of the AutoPap 300 QC
                              System for cervical cytologic abnormalities. Biopsy data confirmation. Acta
                              Cytol. 1996;40:127-132.

                 88.   Wilbur DC, Prey MU, Miller WM, Pawlick GF, Colgan TJ. The AutoPap system for
                              primary screening in cervical cytology. Comparing the results of a prospective,
                              intended-use study with routine manual practice. Acta Cytologica. 1998;42:214-
                              220.

                 89.   Wilbur DC, Prey MU, Miller WM, Pawlick GF, Colgan TJ, Dax Taylor D. Detection of
                              high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions and tumors using the AutoPap
                              System: results of a primary screening clinical trial. Cancer. 1999;87:354-358.

                 90.   Ashfaq R, Liang Y, Saboorian MH. Evaluation of PAPNET system for rescreening of
                              negative cervical smears. Diagn Cytopathol. 1995;13:21-36.





                                                             89
   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88