You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 281 No. 17, May 5, 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Editorial
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (27)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Oncology
 •Cervical Cancer
 •Dermatology
 •Dermatologic Disorders
 •Papillomavirus, Human
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Evaluating the Role of HPV Testing for Women With Equivocal Papanicolaou Test Findings

J. Thomas Cox, MD

JAMA. 1999;281:1645-1647.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical and vaginal cytologic diagnoses dramatically altered the diagnostic categories at the lower end of the cytologic spectrum. The primary impetus for this change was the diagnostic variability and clinical confusion inherent in the class 2 Papanicolaou (Pap) group, which included a spectrum of cellular changes that ranged from normal to definitive manifestations of human papillomavirus (HPV). If clinical confusion were to be diminished, it was clearly necessary to clarify the nature of each class 2 cellular change more specifically. Unfortunately, some atypia remained ambiguous and were designated atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS). The designation "undetermined" highlights the continuing dilemma regarding cells that have no distinguishing characteristics to further clarify their nature. The category has been a major clinical issue, with 2 to 3 million women given a diagnosis that generates uncertainty each year.1-2 The magnitude of the . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Author Affiliation: Student Health Services, University of California, Santa Barbara.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Identifying Women With Cervical Neoplasia: Using Human Papillomavirus DNA Testing for Equivocal Papanicolaou Results
M. Michele Manos, Walter K. Kinney, Leo B. Hurley, Mark E. Sherman, Jen Shieh-Ngai, Robert J. Kurman, Janice E. Ransley, Barbara J. Fetterman, James S. Hartinger, Karen M. McIntosh, Gene F. Pawlick, and Robert A. Hiatt
JAMA. 1999;281(17):1605-1610.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Acceptability of human papillomavirus self testing in female adolescents
Kahn et al.
Sex. Transm. Infect. 2005;81:408-414.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Self-testing for human papillomavirus using a vaginal swab: placing prevention of cervical cancer in the patient's hands
Kahn
Ann Oncol 2004;15:847-849.
FULL TEXT  

Human papillomavirus and the value of screening: young women's knowledge of cervical cancer
Philips et al.
Health Educ Res 2003;18:318-328.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1999 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.