Automation-assisted versus manual reading of cervical cytology (MAVARIC): a randomised controlled trial.

[1]  R Legood,et al.  MAVARIC - a comparison of automation-assisted and manual cervical screening: a randomised controlled trial. , 2011, Health technology assessment.

[2]  J A Halford,et al.  Comparison of the sensitivity of conventional cytology and the ThinPrep Imaging System for 1,083 biopsy confirmed high‐grade squamous lesions , 2009, Diagnostic cytopathology.

[3]  David C Wilbur,et al.  The Becton Dickinson FocalPoint GS Imaging System: clinical trials demonstrate significantly improved sensitivity for the detection of important cervical lesions. , 2009, American journal of clinical pathology.

[4]  B. Thiers.  Human Papillomavirus and Papanicolaou Tests to Screen for Cervical Cancer , 2009 .

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

[6]  J. Berkhof,et al.  Human papillomavirus DNA testing for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and cancer: 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled implementation trial , 2007, The Lancet.

[7]  T. Toivonen,et al.  Randomized evaluation trial on automation-assisted screening for cervical cancer: Results after 777,000 invitations , 2007, Journal of medical screening.

[8]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Overview of the European and North American studies on HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening , 2006, International journal of cancer.

[9]  H. Kitchener,et al.  Effect of testing for human papillomavirus as a triage during screening for cervical cancer: observational before and after study , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[10]  P Barton,et al.  Cervical screening programmes: can automation help? Evidence from systematic reviews, an economic analysis and a simulation modelling exercise applied to the UK. , 2005, Health technology assessment.

[11]  B. Dziura,et al.  Assisted primary screening using the automated ThinPrep Imaging System. , 2005, American journal of clinical pathology.

[12]  J. Dillner,et al.  Virologic versus cytologic triage of women with equivocal Pap smears: A meta-analysis of the accuracy to detect high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia , 2004 .

[13]  M. Schiffman,et al.  Findings to date from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS). , 2003, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[14]  M. Broadstock.  Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of automated and semi-automated cervical screening devices: a systematic review of the literature. , 2001, The New Zealand medical journal.