skip to main content
Idioma:

Evaluation of 100% rapid rescreening of negative cervical smears as a quality assurance measure

Manrique, E. J. C. ; Amaral, R. G. ; Souza, N. L. A. ; Tavares, S. B. N. ; Albuquerque, Z. B. P. ; Zeferino, L. C.

Cytopathology (Oxford), 2006-06, Vol.17 (3), p.116-120 [Periódico revisado por pares]

Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Texto completo disponível

Citações Citado por
  • Título:
    Evaluation of 100% rapid rescreening of negative cervical smears as a quality assurance measure
  • Autor: Manrique, E. J. C. ; Amaral, R. G. ; Souza, N. L. A. ; Tavares, S. B. N. ; Albuquerque, Z. B. P. ; Zeferino, L. C.
  • Assuntos: 10% random rescreening ; Brazil - epidemiology ; cervical cancer ; cervical cytology ; False Negative Reactions ; Female ; Humans ; Mass Screening - methods ; Mass Screening - standards ; Quality Control ; rapid screening ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - epidemiology ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - pathology ; Vaginal Smears - methods ; Vaginal Smears - standards
  • É parte de: Cytopathology (Oxford), 2006-06, Vol.17 (3), p.116-120
  • Notas: ArticleID:CYT368
    ark:/67375/WNG-MH7SVH8M-S
    istex:D72F261997503473CABACABC1D5318500287BDBE
    ObjectType-Article-1
    SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
    ObjectType-Feature-2
    content type line 23
  • Descrição: Objective:  The objective of this study was to compare the performance of 100% rapid rescreening, 10% random rescreening and the review of smears selected on the basis of clinical criteria, as a method of internal quality control of cervical smears classified as negative during routine screening. Methods:  A total of 3149 smears were analysed, 173 of which were classified as positive and 2887 as negative, while 89 smears were considered unsatisfactory. The smears classified as negative were submitted to 100% rapid rescreening, 10% random rescreening, and rescreening based on clinical criteria. The rescreening stages were blinded and results were classified according to the Bethesda 2001 terminology. Six cytologists participated in this study, two of whom were responsible for routine screening while the other four alternated in carrying out rescreening so that no individual reviewed the same slide more than once. Results:  The 100% rapid rescreening method identified 92 suspect smears, of which 42 were considered positive at final diagnosis. Of the 289 smears submitted to the 10% rescreening method, four were considered abnormal but only one was confirmed positive in the final diagnosis. Of the 690 smears rescreened on the basis of clinical criteria, 10 were considered abnormal and eight received a positive final diagnosis. Conclusions:  The 100% rapid rescreening method is more efficient at detecting false‐negative results than 10% random rescreening or rescreening on the basis of clinical criteria, and is recommended as an internal quality control method.
  • Editor: Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd
  • Idioma: Inglês
Links
Voltar para lista de resultados

  • Realização: ABCD-USP USP   Logos de Redes Sociais: Freepik

Buscando em bases de dados remotas. Favor aguardar.