Literature DB >> 22569927

[Quality of conventional PAP smears. Quality assessment and motivation for improvement].

P Regitnig1, A Nader, H Wiener.   

Abstract

The success of cytology in screening programs for cervical cancer is highly dependent on the smear quality. Interdisciplinary projects which evaluate the smear quality and the results of collection devices could be helpful for an improvement and a successful example for quality improvement is presented here. An average of 83% technically adequate and representative smears was documented for 12 million conventional PAP smears; however only an average of 68% technically adequate and representative smears was found for the group of least successful smear takers of all laboratories. This indicates a potential for improvement. Following an interdisciplinary project on smear quality improvement the average rate of representative smears increased from 69 to 83% and in another project this rate remained stable at 86%. Based on 158,411 conventional smears, representative smears were achieved in 92% using Cervex-Brush®, 86% using Szalay Spatula and 82% Cytobrush methods. The combinations of Cytobrush with the Ayre wooden spatula, cotton wool swab or Szalay Spatula achieved 97%, 94% and 92% representative smears, respectively.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22569927     DOI: 10.1007/s00292-012-1574-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pathologe        ISSN: 0172-8113            Impact factor:   1.011


  12 in total

Review 1.  Comparative evaluation of seven cell collection devices for cervical smears.

Authors:  P D Kohlberger; J Stani; G Gitsch; D G Kieback; G Breitenecker
Journal:  Acta Cytol       Date:  1999 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.319

Review 2.  Evaluation of cervical cytology.

Authors:  D C McCrory; D B Matchar; L Bastian; S Datta; V Hasselblad; J Hickey; E Myers; K Nanda
Journal:  Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ)       Date:  1999-01

3.  Pap smear quality parameters of 3 sampling devices used by auxiliary nurse midwives on symptomatic rural Indian women.

Authors:  Lakshmi Rao; Veena K Kamath; Mathilde E Boon; Manna Valiathan; Anuradha C K Rao
Journal:  Acta Cytol       Date:  2005 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.319

Review 4.  Pap smears and screening for cervical neoplasia.

Authors:  E J Wilkinson
Journal:  Clin Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 2.190

5.  Reasons for cervical cancer despite extensive screening.

Authors:  B Stenkvist; J Söderström
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 2.136

6.  Persistent carcinoma in cervical cancer screening: non-participation is the most significant cause.

Authors:  Katrin Marquardt; Heinz H Büttner; Ulf Broschewitz; Malte Barten; Volker Schneider
Journal:  Acta Cytol       Date:  2011-10-08       Impact factor: 2.319

7.  Comparative cytologic yield and quality of three Pap smear instruments.

Authors:  W L Toffler; C K Pluedeman; A E Sinclair; K M Ireland; B J Byrne
Journal:  Fam Med       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 1.756

Review 8.  Collection devices for obtaining cervical cytology samples.

Authors:  P Martin-Hirsch; G Jarvis; H Kitchener; R Lilford
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2000

9.  Comparison of Pap smear quality with anatomical spatula and convenience (spatula-cytobrush) methods: a single blind clinical trial.

Authors:  Khadijeh Abdali; Marzieh Soleimani; Marjan Khajehei; Hamid Reza Tabatabaee; Perikala V Komar; Nader Riaz Montazer
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2010

10.  [Reevaluation of cytological smears in patients with cervical cancer. Regional quality assurance program with the cooperation of the Austrian Society for Cytology, the Carinthian Medical Association and the Carinthian Ministry of Health].

Authors:  P Regitnig; H P Dinges; E Ropp; H Fladerer; F Moinfar; G Breitenecker
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 1.011

View more
  1 in total

1.  Quality of screening with conventional Pap smear in Austria - a longitudinal evaluation.

Authors:  Éva Rásky; Peter Regitnig; Michél Schenouda; Nathalie Burkert; Wolfgang Freidl
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-10-23       Impact factor: 3.295

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.