Shared more. Cited more. Safe forever.
    • advanced search
    • submit works
    • about
    • help
    • contact us
    • login
    View Item 
    •   MOspace Home
    • University of Missouri-Columbia
    • School of Medicine (MU)
    • Department of Family and Community Medicine (MU)
    • Family Physicians Inquiries Network (MU)
    • Clinical Inquiries (MU)
    • Clinical Inquiries, 2004
    • View Item
    •   MOspace Home
    • University of Missouri-Columbia
    • School of Medicine (MU)
    • Department of Family and Community Medicine (MU)
    • Family Physicians Inquiries Network (MU)
    • Clinical Inquiries (MU)
    • Clinical Inquiries, 2004
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
    advanced searchsubmit worksabouthelpcontact us

    Browse

    All of MOspaceCommunities & CollectionsDate IssuedAuthor/ContributorTitleIdentifierThesis DepartmentThesis AdvisorThesis SemesterThis CollectionDate IssuedAuthor/ContributorTitleIdentifierThesis DepartmentThesis AdvisorThesis Semester

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular AuthorsStatistics by Referrer

    Is the ThinPrep better than conventional Pap smear at detecting cervical cancer?

    Andy, Camille
    Turner, Linda F.
    View/Open
    [PDF] IsThinPrepBetter.pdf (77.34Kb)
    Date
    2004
    Format
    Article
    Metadata
    [+] Show full item record
    Abstract
    Conclusions regarding the ThinPrep are difficult to make due to the complexity of cervical cancer screening and the lack of adequate outcomebased data. However, current evidence supports the following: the ThinPrep is more sensitive than the conventional Papanicolaou (Pap) smear at detecting cervical cancer (strength of recommendation [SOR]: A-, based on 1 large validating cohort study with a good reference standard and 1 systematic review). There is insufficient evidence to recommend 1 preparation over the other (SOR: B-, based on several systematic reviews that include studies with poor reference standards).
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10355/3192
    Part of
    Journal of family practice, 53, no. 04 (April 2004): 313+.
    Rights
    OpenAccess.
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.
    Collections
    • Clinical Inquiries, 2004

    Send Feedback
    hosted by University of Missouri Library Systems
     

     


    Send Feedback
    hosted by University of Missouri Library Systems