![The World Congress on Controversies in Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility (COGI). Click here to learn more.]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/112382/JournalAd-COGI2024-Leaderboard.jpg"})
References
- Bestel, M., et al., 2019. Agreement between endocervical brush and endocervical curettage in the diagnosis of cervical cancer. Eastern Journal of Medicine, 24 (1), 86–90.
- Boardman, L.A., et al., 2003. A randomized trial of the sleeved cytobrush and the endocervical curette. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 101 (3), 426–430.
- Damkjaer, M., et al., 2022. Endocervical sampling in women with suspected cervical neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 227(6), 839–848.e4.
- Doo, D.W., et al., 2016. Lack of agreement between endocervical brush and endocervical curettage in women undergoing repeat endocervical sampling. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease, 20 (4), 296–299.
- Dunn, T.S., et al., 2000. Comparing endocervical curettage and endocervical brush at colposcopy. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease, 4 (2), 76–78.
- Feltmate, C. M., Feldman, S. 2020. Colposcopy. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/colposcopy?search=endocervical%20curettage§ionRank=1&usage_type=default&anchor=H11&source=machineLearning&selectedTitle=1∼25&display_rank=1#H11
- Gibson, C.A., et al., 2001. Endocervical sampling: a comparison of endocervical brush, endocervical curette, and combined brush with curette techniques. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease, 5 (1), 1–6.
- Goksedef, B.P., et al., 2013. Diagnostic accuracy of two endocervical sampling method: randomized controlled trial. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 287 (1), 117–122.
- Klam, S., et al., 2000. Comparison of endocervical curettage and endocervical brushing. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 96 (1), 90–94.
- Maksem, J.A., 2006. Endocervical curetting vs. endocervical brushing as case finding methods. Diagnostic Cytopathology, 34 (5), 313–316.
- Martin, D., et al., 1995. Comparison of the endocervical brush and the endocervical curettage for the evaluation of the endocervical canal. Puerto Rico Health Sciences Journal, 14 (3), 195–197.
- Page, M.J., et al., 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ (Clinical Research ed.), 372, n71.
- Perkins, R.B., et al.; 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines Committee. 2020. 2019 ASCCP risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors. Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease, 24 (2), 102–131.
- Solomon, D., et al., 2007. Diagnostic utility of endocervical curettage in women undergoing colposcopy for equivocal or low-grade cytologic abnormalities. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 110 (2 Pt 1), 288–295.
- Tate, K.M. and Strickland, J.L., 1997. A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the use of the endocervical brush after endocervical curettage. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 90 (5), 715–717.
- Undurraga, M., et al., 2017. User perception of endocervical sampling: A randomized comparison of endocervical evaluation with the curette vs cytobrush. PLoS One, 12 (11), e0186812.
- Vh, I., Covidence systematic review software. 2022. www.covidence.org
- Weitzman, G.A., et al., 1988. Endocervical brush cytology. An alternative to endocervical curettage? The Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 33 (8), 677–683.