Diagnostic Histopathology
Volume 15, Issue 7 , Pages 323-329 , July 2009

Role of automation in cervical cytology

References 

  1. Nasseem Husain OA. The history of automated cell scanners. In:  Grohs HK,  Naseem Husain OA editor. Automated cervical cancer screening. New York: Igaku-Shoin; 1994;p. 3–14
  2. Tolles WE. The cytoanalyser: an example of physics in medical research. Trans NY Acad Sci. 1955;17:250–256
  3. Patten SF, Lee JSJ, Nelson AC. Neopath AutoPap 300 automatic Pap screening system. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:45–52
  4. Mango LJ. Neuromedical Systems, Inc. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:53–59
  5. Wilbur DC, Prey MU, Miller WM, et al. The AutoPap system for primary screening in cervical cytology: comparing the results of a prospective, intended use study with routine manual practice. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:214–220
  6. Vassilakos P, Carrel S, Petignat P, et al. Use of automated primary screening on liquid-based, thin-layer preparations. Acta Cytol. 2002;46:291–295
  7. Bishop JW, Kaufman RH, Taylor DA. Multicenter comparison of manual and automated screening of AutoCyte gynaecological preparations. Acta Cytol. 1999;43:34–48
  8. Wilbur DC, Parker EM, Foti JA. Location-guided screening of liquid-based cervical cytology specimens. Am J Clin Pathol. 2002;118:399–407
  9. Dawson AE. Can we change the way we screen? The ThinPrep Imaging System® clinical trial data and early experience. Cancer Cytopathol. 2004;102:340–344
  10. Desai M. BD FocalPoint™ GS Imaging System. Cytopathology. 2008;19(Suppl 2):1
  11. Broadstock M. A systematic review of the literature. Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of automated and semi-automated cervical screening devices. NZHTA. 2000;3(1):1–146
  12. Willis BH, Barton P, Pearmain P, Bryan S, Hyde C. Cervical screening programmes: can automation help? Evidence from systemic reviews, an economic analysis and a simulation modelling exercise applied to the UK. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9:1–207
  13. Dziura B, Quinn S, Richard K. Performance of an imaging system vs. manual screening in the detection of squamous intraepithelial lesions of the uterine cervix. Acta Cytol. 2006;50:309–311
  14. Davey E, d'Assuncao J, Irwig L, et al. Accuracy of reading liquid based cytology slides using the ThinPrep Imager compared with conventional cytology: prospective study. BMJ. 2007;335:31–38
  15. Passamonti B, Bulletti S, Camilli M, et al. Evaluation of the FocalPoint GS System performance in an Italian population-based screening of cervical abnormalities. Acta Cytol. 2007;51:865–871
  16. ScHARR report. Option appraisal: assessment of a seven-day turn-around for the reporting of cervical smear results. Sheffield: ScHARR, University of Sheffield; 2006;
  17. MAVARIC Trial. NIHR health technology assessment programme. Also available at: http://www.hta.ac.uk/1462

PII: S1756-2317(09)00106-6

doi: 10.1016/j.mpdhp.2009.05.001

Diagnostic Histopathology
Volume 15, Issue 7 , Pages 323-329 , July 2009

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution