1Sulik SM, Kroeger K, Schultz JK, et al. Are fluid-based cytologies superior to the conventional papanicolaou test? a systematic review. J Fam Pract, 2001,50(12):1040-1046.
2Ries L, Kosary C, Hanky B, et al. SEER cancer statistics review,1973～1995. Bethesda,MD:National Cancer Institute, 1998.
3Hutchinson ML, Cassin CM, Ball HG. The efficacy of an automated preparation device for cervical cytology. Am J Clin Pathol, 1991,96(3):300-305.
4Sprenger E, Schwarzmann P, Kirkpatrick M, et al. The false negative rate in cervical cytology. Acta Cytol, 1996,40(1):81-89.
5Pajtler M, Audy-Jurkovic S. Pap smear adequacy-is the assessing criterion induding endocervical cells really valid? Coll Antropol, 2002,26(2):565-570.
6Cheung AN, Szeto EF, Leung BS, et al. Liquid-based cytology and conventional cervical smears: a comparison study in an Asian screening population. Cancer,2003,99(6):331-335.
7Abulafia O, Pezzullo JC, Sherer DM. Performance of ThinPrep liquidbased cervical cytology in comparison with conventionally prepared Papanicolaou smears: a quant itative survey. Gynecol Oncol, 2003,90(1):137-144.
8Hutchinson ML, Zahniser DJ, Sherman ME, et al. Utility of liquid-based cytology for cervical carcinoma screening. Cancer, 1999,87(2):48-55.
9Maxwell GL, Carlson JW, Ochoa M, et al. Costs and effectiveness of alternative strategies for cervical cancer screening in military beneficiaries. Obstet Gynocol, 2002,100(4):740-748.
10Papillo JL, Zarka MA, St John TL. Evaluation of the ThinPreppap-test in clinical practic:a seven-month,16 314case experience in Northern Vermont. Acta Cytol, 1998,42(1):203-208.
