Acta cytologica · 2009
Comparison of false negative rates between 100% rapid review and 10% random full rescreening as internal quality control methods in cervical cytology screening.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Lee Benjamin Chi Kui, Lam Sui Yue, Walker Todd
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare and contrast the 100% partial rapid review (RR) method against 10% randomly selected full rescreening to determine the better means of internal quality control (QC) by which the cervical screening laboratory should adopt.
STUDY DESIGN: A total of 4,150 conventional Pap smears reported as negative during 2003 were 100% rescreened rapidly in large field jumps. From this cohort, 415 (10%) were selected again randomly for full rescreening. The false negative rates (FNRs) were calculated and compared accordingly.
RESULTS: The 100% RR method reclassified 30 false negative (FN) cases, while the 10% random full rescreening reclassified only 5. The FNRs were calculated to be 8.2% and 12.9%, respectively. A chi2 test (p < 0.05) showed significant difference between the FNRs calculated by both methods.
CONCLUSION: The 100% RR proved to be a better method for QC purpose in reducing the FNRs and detected more missing cases. This study is the first of its type from Hong Kong and confirms previous publications from elsewhere that 100% RR is a better method for internal QC in cervical cytology screening.
STUDY DESIGN: A total of 4,150 conventional Pap smears reported as negative during 2003 were 100% rescreened rapidly in large field jumps. From this cohort, 415 (10%) were selected again randomly for full rescreening. The false negative rates (FNRs) were calculated and compared accordingly.
RESULTS: The 100% RR method reclassified 30 false negative (FN) cases, while the 10% random full rescreening reclassified only 5. The FNRs were calculated to be 8.2% and 12.9%, respectively. A chi2 test (p < 0.05) showed significant difference between the FNRs calculated by both methods.
CONCLUSION: The 100% RR proved to be a better method for QC purpose in reducing the FNRs and detected more missing cases. This study is the first of its type from Hong Kong and confirms previous publications from elsewhere that 100% RR is a better method for internal QC in cervical cytology screening.