{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,6]],"date-time":"2026-10-06T11:28:02Z","timestamp":1791286082308,"version":"4.1.0"},"reference-count":13,"publisher":"S. Karger AG","issue":"2","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2013,1,1]],"date-time":"2013-01-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1356998400000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Services\/SiteLicenses"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2013,1,1]],"date-time":"2013-01-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1356998400000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Services\/SiteLicenses"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Acta Cytologica"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2013]]},"abstract":"<b><i>Objective:<\/i><\/b> To find an appropriate sampling device for a liquid-based procedure in the population screening for cervical cancer, focusing on bleeding at sampling and the amount of cells smeared. <b><i>Methods and Materials:<\/i><\/b> 1,000 consecutive women who underwent primary screening were studied. The specimens were obtained with the cotton stick\/Cytobrush\u00ae method in the first 500 cases or with the Cervex-Brush\u00ae in the following 500 subjects, and were processed using the Thinlayer Advanced Cytology Assay System (TACAS\u2122) following the manufacturer\u2019s instructions. <b><i>Results:<\/i><\/b> (1) Bleeding at cellular sampling using the cotton stick\/Cytobrush and Cervex-Brush methods occurred in 1.2 and 8.8% of the cases, respectively (p < 0.0001). (2) The incidences of cells obtained with the two methods which covered the whole area, <1\/2 and \u22651\/4, and <1\/4 of the observation fields were 55.4 versus 62.2% (p < 0.05), 14.6 versus 9.4% (p < 0.05), and 2.0 versus 4.0% (p < 0.05), respectively. (3) The incidences of endocervical or metaplastic cells obtained with \u2265500 and <10 were 34.6 versus 20.0% (p < 0.01) and 9.4 versus 18.4% (p < 0.01), respectively. In cases of cells covering <1\/4, incidences with <10 were 0 and 0.6% (n = 3), respectively. (4) Detection rates of abnormal cytology were 3.4 and 5.2% (n.s.), including atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance in 2.4 and 3.2%. <b><i>Conclusions:<\/i><\/b> The cotton stick\/Cytobrush is superior to the Cervex-Brush as a cellular sampling device for the TACAS liquid-based procedure.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1159\/000345798","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2013,2,8]],"date-time":"2013-02-08T08:15:10Z","timestamp":1360311310000},"page":"153-158","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":7,"title":["Optimal Sampling Devices for Liquid-Based Procedure in Screening for Cervical Cancer: Comparison between Cotton Stick\/Cytobrush and Cervex-Brush"],"prefix":"10.1159","volume":"57","author":[{"given":"Hiroyuki","family":"Kuramoto","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Midori","family":"Banno","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Masuko","family":"Hori","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Jun","family":"Miyagawa","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Manichi","family":"Iida","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Miwa","family":"Kawaguchi","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"127","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2013,2,28]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002%2Fdc.20607"},{"key":"ref2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.5795%2Fjjscc.47.420"},{"key":"ref3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016%2FS0029-7844%2897%2900228-7"},{"key":"ref4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097%2F00128360-200410000-00009"},{"key":"ref5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002%2Fdc.20665"},{"key":"ref6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1159%2F000332971"},{"key":"ref7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016%2F1054-139X%2892%2990017-6"},{"key":"ref8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136%2Fbmj.313.7059.721"},{"key":"ref9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136%2Fbmj.313.7068.1285"},{"key":"ref10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111%2Fj.1479-828X.1995.tb02165.x"},{"key":"ref11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111%2Fj.1365-2303.2006.00386.x"},{"key":"ref12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111%2Fj.1525-1438.2006.00629.x"},{"key":"ref13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1186%2F1472-6874-4-6"}],"container-title":["Acta Cytologica"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Article\/Pdf\/345798","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/www.karger.com\/Article\/Pdf\/345798","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,4,23]],"date-time":"2025-04-23T18:39:24Z","timestamp":1745433564000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/karger.com\/article\/doi\/10.1159\/000345798"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2013]]},"references-count":13,"journal-issue":{"issue":"2","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2013,4,1]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2013,2,28]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1159\/000345798","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["0001-5547","1938-2650"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0001-5547","type":"print"},{"value":"1938-2650","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2013]]}}}