Table 2. Pooled performance of CS and LBC techniques.
| Malignant | Benign | Suspicious | |
| Pooled odds ratio (95 % confidence interval) | |||
| Conventional smear vs Liquid based cytology (LBC) | NA | OR = 1.1 (0.7–1.75) P = 0.7 I 2 = 2; 8 studies | OR = 1.23 (0.96–1.59) P = 0.1 I 2 = 76; 5 studies |
| Conventional smear vs Precipitation-LBC (SurePath) | OR = 0.39 (0.19–0.8) P = 0.01 I 2 = 60; 3 studies | OR = 1.1 (0.6–2.1) P = 0.7 I 2 = 48; 3 studies | -NA- |
| Conventional smear vs Filtration-LBC (ThinPrep, CellPrep) | OR = 1.69 (1.02–2.79) P = 0.04 I 2 = 56; 7 studies | OR = 1.1 (0.54–2.17) P = 0.8 I 2 = 0; 5 studies | OR = 0.47 (0.27–0.8) P = 0.006 I 2 = 0; 4 studies |
| Pooled proportions (95 % confidence interval) | |||
| Conventional smear | 64.9 % (43.4–81.7) I 2 = 96; 10 studies | 26.4 % (8.2–58.8) I 2 = 94; 8 studies | 22.8 % (10.4–42.7) I 2 = 93; 5 studies |
| Liquid-based cytology subtypes | |||
| Precipitation-LBC (SurePath) | 84.1 % (50.9–96.4) I 2 = 98; 3 studies | 23.2 % (3.3–72.5) I 2 = 98; 3 studies | NA |
| Filtration-LBC (ThinPrep) | 48.6 % (24.2–73.7) I 2 = 84; 7 studies | 29.1 % (6.7–70.3) I 2 = 85; 5 studies | 27.5 % (11.9–51.5) I 2 = 18; 4 studies |
CS convetional smear; LBC, liquid-based cytology.