Literature DB >> 8770538

Differences between Papanicolaou smears with correct and incorrect diagnoses.

H Mitchell1, G Medley.   

Abstract

A case control study of women with carcinoma in situ (CINIII) was undertaken comparing Papanicolaou smears for which false negative reports had been issued with slides for which true positive reports had been made. The number of abnormal cells was the strongest differentiating factor. Where there were less than 50 abnormal cells on the slide, the odds of a false negative report being issued was 23.7 times greater (95% confidence interval 3.7-150) than when there were 200 or more abnormal cells. In false negative slides, the abnormal cells were likely to be not represented throughout the slide, present only as single cells rather than as groups, small in size and with finely granular normochromatic nuclei. We conclude that there are intrinsic differences between true positive and false negative slides. Given these characteristics, rapid rescreening of slides that are considered negative may not be an effective method of reducing the false negative rate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 8770538     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.1995.tb00484.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cytopathology        ISSN: 0956-5507            Impact factor:   2.073


  3 in total

1.  Label-Free and Continuous-Flow Ferrohydrodynamic Separation of HeLa Cells and Blood Cells in Biocompatible Ferrofluids.

Authors:  Wujun Zhao; Taotao Zhu; Rui Cheng; Yufei Liu; Jian He; Hong Qiu; Lianchun Wang; Tamas Nagy; Troy D Querec; Elizabeth R Unger; Leidong Mao
Journal:  Adv Funct Mater       Date:  2015-12-07       Impact factor: 18.808

2.  Prevalence of abnormalities influences cytologists' error rates in screening for cervical cancer.

Authors:  Karla K Evans; Rosemary H Tambouret; Andrew Evered; David C Wilbur; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 5.534

3.  The borderline cervical smear: colposcopic and biopsy outcome.

Authors:  A al-Nafussi; G Rebello; R al-Yusif; E McGoogan
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.411

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.