Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2013
The feasibilities of TruScreen for primary cervical cancer screening: a self-controlled study.
Сравнительное исследованиеКонтролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Long Shuyu, Lei Wei, Feng Yukuan, Lv Donghao, Cai Yaxi, Yang Pei
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Screening programs based on cytology testing led to the incidence reduction of cervical cancer mortality of about 70-80 % in industrialized countries. However, these favorable results have not been replicated in developing areas. Thus, we aim to evaluate the efficacy of TruScreen (Polartechnics, Sydney, Australia) in detecting of precancerous lesions in comparison with cervical cytology test.
METHODS: A total of 181 outpatients were screened by TruScreen using the pathological results as the gold standard. The medical records of cytological smear within 6 weeks were obtained from 169 of these participants. The reliability and yield of TruScreen and cytological smear were assessed. The screening results of TruScreen were compared with those obtained from the conventional smear.
RESULTS: The sensitivities for histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) lesions by TruScreen and Pap, were 67.4 % (95 % CI 53.4-81.5) and 87.9 % (95 % CI 76.7-99.0), respectively. The specificities for histologically confirmed CIN lesions by TruScreen and Pap, were 68.1 % (95 % CI 60.3-75.9) and 74.3 % (95 % CI 70.0-81.4), respectively. In contrast to Pap smear, TruScreen was comparatively efficacious in screening of cervical cancer (χ (2) = 0.0133, P = 0.9081).
CONCLUSION: TruScreen is a potential test for initial cervical screening in developing world regions.
METHODS: A total of 181 outpatients were screened by TruScreen using the pathological results as the gold standard. The medical records of cytological smear within 6 weeks were obtained from 169 of these participants. The reliability and yield of TruScreen and cytological smear were assessed. The screening results of TruScreen were compared with those obtained from the conventional smear.
RESULTS: The sensitivities for histologically confirmed cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) lesions by TruScreen and Pap, were 67.4 % (95 % CI 53.4-81.5) and 87.9 % (95 % CI 76.7-99.0), respectively. The specificities for histologically confirmed CIN lesions by TruScreen and Pap, were 68.1 % (95 % CI 60.3-75.9) and 74.3 % (95 % CI 70.0-81.4), respectively. In contrast to Pap smear, TruScreen was comparatively efficacious in screening of cervical cancer (χ (2) = 0.0133, P = 0.9081).
CONCLUSION: TruScreen is a potential test for initial cervical screening in developing world regions.