Process performance of cervical screening programmes in Europe.

[1]  N. Segnan,et al.  European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening. Second Edition—Summary Document , 2010, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[2]  Marc Arbyn,et al.  The challenges of organising cervical screening programmes in the 15 old member states of the European Union. , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[3]  G. Ronco,et al.  Description of the national situation of cervical cancer screening in the member states of the European Union. , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[4]  F. Bray,et al.  Trends of cervical cancer mortality in the member states of the European Union. , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[5]  M. Grce,et al.  Challenges in starting organised screening programmes for cervical cancer in the new member states of the European Union. , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[6]  S. Franceschi,et al.  HPV infection in Europe. , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[7]  G. Ronco,et al.  Cervical cancer screening policies and coverage in Europe. , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[8]  G. Ronco,et al.  What's next? Perspectives and future needs of cervical screening in Europe in the era of molecular testing and vaccination. , 2009, European journal of cancer.

[9]  Marc Arbyn,et al.  Liquid Compared With Conventional Cervical Cytology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis , 2008, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[10]  J. Ferlay,et al.  Burden of cervical cancer in the 27 member states of the European Union: estimates for 2004. , 2007, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[11]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[12]  M. Zorzi,et al.  Extension of organised cervical cancer screening programmes in Italy and their process indicators. , 2007, Epidemiologia e prevenzione.

[13]  J. Habbema,et al.  Nonattendance is still the main limitation for the effectiveness of screening for cervical cancer in the Netherlands , 2006, International journal of cancer.

[14]  Calum MacAulay,et al.  Kappa statistics to measure interrater and intrarater agreement for 1790 cervical biopsy specimens among twelve pathologists: qualitative histopathologic analysis and methodologic issues. , 2005, Gynecologic oncology.

[15]  R. Zanetti,et al.  Impact of the introduction of organised screening for cervical cancer in Turin, Italy: cancer incidence by screening history 1992–98 , 2005, British Journal of Cancer.

[16]  F. Bray,et al.  Cervical cancer screening programmes and policies in 18 European countries , 2004, British Journal of Cancer.

[17]  L. Rozendaal,et al.  The Dutch CISOE-A framework for cytology reporting increases efficacy of screening upon standardisation since 1996 , 2004, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[18]  J. Schott,et al.  [EVE, a regional campaign for the screening of cervical cancer. Organization, 7-years results and perspectives]. , 2003, Presse medicale.

[19]  G. Ronco,et al.  Effect of circulation and discussion of cervical smears on agreement between laboratories , 2003, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

[20]  D. O'connor,et al.  Discrepancy in the Interpretation of Cervical Histology by Gynecologic Pathologists , 2002, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[21]  Mark Sherman,et al.  The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. , 2002, JAMA.

[22]  David R. Scott,et al.  Use of human papillomavirus DNA testing to compare equivocal cervical cytologic interpretations in the United States, Scandinavia, and the United Kingdom , 2002, Cancer.

[23]  M. Schiffman,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. , 2001, JAMA.

[24]  M Arbyn,et al.  Overview of important cervical cancer screening process values in European Union (EU) countries, and tentative predictions of the corresponding effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. , 2000, European journal of cancer.

[25]  R. Zaino,et al.  Variance in the interpretation of cervical biopsy specimens obtained for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. , 2000, American journal of clinical pathology.

[26]  H. Van Oyen,et al.  Cervical cancer screening in Belgium. , 2000, European journal of cancer.

[27]  O’sullivan.  Observer variation in gynaecological cytopathology , 1998, Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology.

[28]  K R Lee,et al.  Use of statistical analysis of cytologic interpretation to determine the causes of interobserver disagreement and in quality improvement , 1997, Cancer.

[29]  M. Dreyfus,et al.  Screening histories of incidence cases of cervical cancer and high grade SIL. A comparison. , 1997, Acta cytologica.

[30]  H. Adami,et al.  International incidence rates of invasive cervical cancer before cytological screening , 1997 .

[31]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Estimating the efficacy of screening by auditing smear histories of women with and without cervical cancer. The National Co-ordinating Network for Cervical Screening Working Group. , 1996, British Journal of Cancer.

[32]  R. Newcombe,et al.  Observer variation in histopathological diagnosis and grading of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. , 1989, BMJ.

[33]  P. Sparén,et al.  Methods for screening and diagnosis , 2007 .

[34]  D. Parkin,et al.  Evaluation and monitoring of screening programmes , 2001 .