væskebaseret teknik og udstrygningsteknik anvendt til screening for ...

65Yeoh GPS, Chan KW, Lauder I, Lam MB. Evaluation of the ThinPrep Papanicolaou test in clinical practice: 6 month studyof 16.541 cases with histological correlation in 220 cases. HKMJ 1999; 5:233-239.66Ferris DG, Heidemann NL, Litaker MS, Crosby JH, Macfee MS. The efficacy of liquid-based cervical cytology using directto-vialsample collection. J Fam Pract 2000; 49:1005-1011.67Minge L, Fleming M, VanGeem T, Bishop JW. AutoCyte prep system vs. Conventional cervical cytology. Comparison basedon 2.156 cases. J Reprod Med 2000; 45:179-184.68Tench W. Preliminary assessment of the AutoCyte prep. Direct-to-vial performance. J Reprod Med 2000; 45:912-916.69Vassilakos P, Schwartz DS, de Marval F, Yousfi L, Broquet G, Mathez-Loic F, Campana A, Major A. Biopsy-based comparisonof liquid-based thin-layer preparations to conventional Pap smears. J Reprod Med 2000; 45:11-16.70Weintraub J, Morabia A. Efficacy of a liquid-based thin layer method for cervical cancer screening in a population witha low incidence of cervical cancer. Diag Cytopathol 2000; 22:52-59.71Hessling JJ, Raso DS, Schiffer B, Callicott J, Husain M, Taylor D. Effictiveness of thin-layer preparations vs. conventionalPap smears in a blinded, split-sample study. J Reprod Med 2001; 46:880-886.72Marino JF, Fremont-Smith M. Direct-to-vial experience with AutoCyte Prep in a small New England regional cytologypractice. J Reprod Med 2001; 46:353-358.73Monsonego J, Autillo-Touati A, Bergeron C, Dachez R, Liaras J, Saurel J, Zerat L, Chatelain P, Mottot C. Liquid-basedcytology for primary cervical cancer screening: a multi-centre study. Br J Cancer 2001; 84:360-366.74Obwegeser JH, Brack S. Does liquid-based technology really improve detection of cervical neoplasia? A prospective,randomized trial comparing the ThinPrep Pap test with the conventional Pap test, including follow-up of HSIL cases.Acta Cytol 2001; 45:709-714.75Biscotti CV, O’Brian DL, Gero MA, Gramlich TL, Kennedy AW, Easley KA. Thin-layer Pap test vs. conventional Pap smear.Analysis of 400 split samples. J Reprod Med 2002; 47:9-13.76Grace A, McBrearty P, Troost S, Kay E, Leader M. Comparative study: conventional cervical and ThinPrep Pap tests in aroutine clinical setting. Cytopathology 2002; 13:200-205.77Luthra U, Chishti M, Dey P, Jolly SV, Abdulla A, Das DK, Sugathan TN, Ajrawi MT, George J, George SS, Aziz AA, Al-Juwaiser A, Karim FA, Mallik MK, Sheikh ZA, Khan S. Performance of monolayer cervical smears in a gynecology outpatientsetting in Kuwait. Acta Cytol 2002; 46:303-310.78Cheung ANY, Szeto EF, Leung BS, Khoo US, Ng AW. Liquid-based cytology and conventional cervical smears. A comparisonstudy in an asian screening population. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol) 2003; 99:331-335.79Coste J Cochand-Prillet B, de Cremoux P, Le Galès C, Cartier I, Molinié V, Labbé S, Vacher-Lavenu MC, Viehl P. Crosssectional study of conventional cervical smear, monolayer cytology, and human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervicalcancer screening. BMJ 2003; 326:1-5.80Farnsworth A. Liquid-based cytology: an australian experience. Cytopathology 2003; 14:48-52.81Harkness CB, Theofrastous JP, Ibrahim SN, Galvin SL, Lawrence HC. Papanicolaou and thin-layer cervical cytology withcolposcopic biopsy control. J Reprod Med 2003; 48(9):681-686.Væskebaseret teknik og udstrygningsteknik anvendt til screening for livmoderhalskræft i Danmark 44