A Baker1, D Melcher, R Smith. 1. Department of Clinical Cytopathology, Brighton General Hospital, Sussex.
Abstract
AIMS: To investigate the use of rapid re-screening as a quality control method for previously screened cervical slides; to compare this method with 10% random re-screening and clinically indicated double screening. METHODS: Between June 1990 and December 1994, 117,890 negative smears were subjected to rapid re-screening. RESULTS: This study shows that rapid re-screening detects far greater numbers of false negative cases when compared with both 10% random re-screening and clinically indicated double screening, with no additional demand on human resources. The technique also identifies variation in the performance of screening personnel as an additional benefit. CONCLUSION: Rapid re-screening is an effective method of quality control. Although less sensitive, rapid re-screening should replace 10% random re-screening and selected re-screening as greater numbers of false negative results are detected while consuming less resources.
AIMS: To investigate the use of rapid re-screening as a quality control method for previously screened cervical slides; to compare this method with 10% random re-screening and clinically indicated double screening. METHODS: Between June 1990 and December 1994, 117,890 negative smears were subjected to rapid re-screening. RESULTS: This study shows that rapid re-screening detects far greater numbers of false negative cases when compared with both 10% random re-screening and clinically indicated double screening, with no additional demand on human resources. The technique also identifies variation in the performance of screening personnel as an additional benefit. CONCLUSION: Rapid re-screening is an effective method of quality control. Although less sensitive, rapid re-screening should replace 10% random re-screening and selected re-screening as greater numbers of false negative results are detected while consuming less resources.
Authors: D M Evans; E A Hudson; C L Brown; M M Boddington; H E Hughes; E F Mackenzie; T Marshall Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 1986-09 Impact factor: 3.411