Literature DB >> 8813961

Rapid review (partial rescreening) of cervical cytology. Four years experience and quality assurance implications.

C A Faraker1, M E Boxer.   

Abstract

AIMS: To determine the sensitivity of the partial rescreening method of rapid review for internal quality control of cervical cytology; to determine which staff members are most suited to undertake it; and to investigate the cell patterns of false negative smears previously detected by the method.
METHODS: As a prospective study 9517 cervical smears were partially screened by four cytotechnologists using the 'step' method prior to conventional screening and the results compared with the final report. As a retrospective study 62 false negative smears that had been identified by the method over four years were reviewed.
RESULTS: A detection rate for dyskaryosis of 86% (range 82-91%) was achieved. Sixteen abnormal smears were missed on conventional screening that had been detected by prescreening. Review of the 62 false negatives revealed three patterns: (1) scanty abnormal cells; (2) abundant dyskaryotic cells presenting as "microbiopsies"; and (3) abundant, readily recognisable abnormal cells.
CONCLUSIONS: Partial rescreening enables the detection of errors due to both fatigue and misinterpretation. In this laboratory the method has, together with targeted full rescreening, reduced the false negative report rate from 5.0% to 0.4%. For laboratories using a rapid review method to reduce false negative reports, a prescreening trial is recommended in order (1) to select the most effective review method and the staff most suited to undertake it; and (2) to determine the laboratory's sensitivity with the method, as this is required for accurate estimation of the false negative rate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8813961      PMCID: PMC500577          DOI: 10.1136/jcp.49.7.587

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Pathol        ISSN: 0021-9746            Impact factor:   3.411


  11 in total

1.  Screening errors in cervical cytologic screening.

Authors:  Y van der Graaf; G P Vooijs; H L Gaillard; D M Go
Journal:  Acta Cytol       Date:  1987 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.319

2.  Partial rescreening.

Authors:  C A Faraker
Journal:  Cytopathology       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 2.073

3.  Negative cytology preceding cervical cancer: causes and prevention.

Authors:  J H Robertson; B Woodend
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 3.411

4.  Partial rescreening of all negative smears: an improved method of quality assurance in laboratories undertaking cervical screening.

Authors:  C A Faraker
Journal:  Cytopathology       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 2.073

5.  Role of re-screening of cervical smears in internal quality control.

Authors:  A Baker; D Melcher; R Smith
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  1995-11       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Cervical (Pap) smear. New directions.

Authors:  L G Koss
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1993-02-15       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Cytology in the headlines.

Authors:  C W Bedrossian; P K Gupta
Journal:  Diagn Cytopathol       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 1.582

8.  Cervical cytology internal quality assurance--what are the national standards?

Authors:  D Slater
Journal:  Cytopathology       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 2.073

Review 9.  The Papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection. A triumph and a tragedy.

Authors:  L G Koss
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1989-02-03       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Evaluation of the PAPNET cytologic screening system for quality control of cervical smears.

Authors:  L G Koss; E Lin; K Schreiber; P Elgert; L Mango
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 2.493

View more
  3 in total

1.  Rapid review of cervical cytology.

Authors:  S Frist
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 3.411

2.  Cytological variations and typical diagnostic features of endocervical adenocarcinoma in situ: A retrospective study of 74 cases.

Authors:  Takashi Umezawa; Miyaka Umemori; Ayana Horiguchi; Kouichi Nomura; Hiroyuki Takahashi; Kyosuke Yamada; Kazunori Ochiai; Aikou Okamoto; Masahiro Ikegami; Motoji Sawabe
Journal:  Cytojournal       Date:  2015-04-29       Impact factor: 2.091

Review 3.  A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency.

Authors:  Mai T Pham; Andrijana Rajić; Judy D Greig; Jan M Sargeant; Andrew Papadopoulos; Scott A McEwen
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2014-07-24       Impact factor: 5.273

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.