Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Research Article

Sampling endocervical cells on cervical smears: a comparison of two instruments used in general practice. Cumbrian Practice Research Group.

British Journal of General Practice 1991; 41 (346): 192-193.
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The Aylesbury spatula and a newer plastic device, the Cervex sampler (Steriseal), have been compared in a prospective study, to assess their ability to obtain endocervical cells on cervical smears taken in general practice. Twelve general practitioners in Cumbria took part in the study each taking equal numbers of smears from women with the Aylesbury spatula and the Cervex sampler. On average each practice took 20 smears with each instrument. All women attending for cervical smears for whatever reason were included in the study. Endocervical cells were reported in 62.8% of smears taken with the Aylesbury spatula and in 78.2% taken with the Cervex sampler (odds ratio 1.24, 95% confidence interval 1.10 to 1.41). Increasing the percentage of smears which contain endocervical cells by using the Cervex sampler would reduce the number of repeat tests needed. This would cut down anxiety and inconvenience for the patient, and reduce costs for the health service.

Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 41 (346)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 41, Issue 346
May 1991
  • Table of Contents
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Sampling endocervical cells on cervical smears: a comparison of two instruments used in general practice. Cumbrian Practice Research Group.
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Sampling endocervical cells on cervical smears: a comparison of two instruments used in general practice. Cumbrian Practice Research Group.
British Journal of General Practice 1991; 41 (346): 192-193.

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Sampling endocervical cells on cervical smears: a comparison of two instruments used in general practice. Cumbrian Practice Research Group.
British Journal of General Practice 1991; 41 (346): 192-193.
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Integrated primary mental health care: threat or opportunity in the new NHS?
  • "The cawing of the crow...Cassandra-like, prognosticating woe".
  • New concepts in screening.
Show more Research Article

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242