Abstract
AIMS--To investigate the use of rapid re-screening as a quality control method for previously screened cervical slides; to compare this method with 10% random re-screening and clinically indicated double screening. METHODS--Between June 1990 and December 1994, 117,890 negative smears were subjected to rapid re-screening. RESULTS--This study shows that rapid re-screening detects far greater numbers of false negative cases when compared with both 10% random re-screening and clinically indicated double screening, with no additional demand on human resources. The technique also identifies variation in the performance of screening personnel as an additional benefit. CONCLUSION--Rapid re-screening is an effective method of quality control. Although less sensitive, rapid re-screening should replace 10% random re-screening and selected re-screening as greater numbers of false negative results are detected while consuming less resources.
Full text
PDFdata:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dc321/dc321df1277b877d71ec6de736ea5adba70e100d" alt="1002"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a0b7c/a0b7c5c5d15c49e1cbc0b160842ae50f0e8c5f37" alt="1003"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/55ece/55eceb64996edc5dbfdf107bbfd0afe8abb108f6" alt="1004"
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Baker A., Melcher D. H. Rapid cervical cytology screening. Cytopathology. 1991;2(6):299–301. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.1991.tb00504.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Beilby J. O., Bourne R., Guillebaud J., Steele S. T. Paired cervical smears: a method of reducing the false-negative rate in population screening. Obstet Gynecol. 1982 Jul;60(1):46–48. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Carney C. N. Quality control in cytopathology. A system for simultaneous monitoring of accuracy and education and for proficiency testing. Acta Cytol. 1984 Sep-Oct;28(5):535–540. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Evans D. M., Hudson E. A., Brown C. L., Boddington M. M., Hughes H. E., Mackenzie E. F., Marshall T. Terminology in gynaecological cytopathology: report of the Working Party of the British Society for Clinical Cytology. J Clin Pathol. 1986 Sep;39(9):933–944. doi: 10.1136/jcp.39.9.933. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Faraker C. A. Partial rescreening of all negative smears: an improved method of quality assurance in laboratories undertaking cervical screening. Cytopathology. 1993;4(1):47–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.1993.tb00072.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hindman W. M. An approach to the problem of false negatives in gynecologic cytologic screening. Acta Cytol. 1989 Nov-Dec;33(6):814–818. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Koss L. G. The Papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection. A triumph and a tragedy. JAMA. 1989 Feb 3;261(5):737–743. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Melamed M. R. Presidential address. Twentieth annual scientific meeting, American Society of Cytology. Acta Cytol. 1973 Jul-Aug;17(4):285–288. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rohr L. R. Quality assurance in gynecologic cytology. What is practical? Am J Clin Pathol. 1990 Dec;94(6):754–758. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/94.6.754. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Slater D. N. Cervical cytology external and internal quality assurance: a comparative appraisal. J Clin Pathol. 1995 Feb;48(2):95–97. doi: 10.1136/jcp.48.2.95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wood R. J., Hicklin M. D. Rescreening as a quality control procedure in cytopathology. Acta Cytol. 1977 Mar-Apr;21(2):240–246. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]