MAVARIC – a comparison of automation-assisted and manual cervical screening: a randomised controlled trial

Article English OPEN
HC Kitchener ; R Blanks ; H Cubie ; M Desai ; G Dunn ; R Legood ; A Gray ; Z Sadique ; S Moss (2011)
  • Publisher: NIHR Journals Library
  • Journal: Health Technology Assessment (issn: 1366-5278)
  • Related identifiers: doi: 10.3310/hta15030
  • Subject: R855-855.5 | Medical technology
    mesheuropmc: equipment and supplies | bacterial infections and mycoses | fluids and secretions

The principal objective was to compare automation-assisted reading of cervical cytology with manual reading using the histological end point of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade II (CIN2) or worse (CIN2+). Secondary objectives included (i) an assessment of the slide ranking facility of the Becton Dickinson (BD) FocalPoint™ Slide Profiler (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA), especially 'No Further Review', (ii) a comparison of the two approved automated systems, the ThinPrep® Imaging System (Hologic, Bedford, MA, USA) and the BD FocalPoint Guided Screener Imaging System, and (iii) automated versus manual in terms of productivity and cost-effectiveness.
  • References (13)
    13 references, page 1 of 2

    1. Lee JSJ, Kuan L, Seho Oh, Patten FW, Wilbur DC. A feasibility study of the AutoPap system location-guided screening. Acta Cytol 1998;42:221-5.

    2. Alasio LM, Alphandery C, Grassi P, Ruggeri M, De Palo G, Pilotti S. Performance of the AutoPap primary screening system in the detection of high-risk cases in cervicovaginal smears. Acta Cytol 2001;45:704-8.

    3. Cleary J, Rabbitte L, Kenny B, Bennani F, Fitzpatrick B. Impact of FocalPsolindte profiler on reporting of results. IACC meeting, 16-17 May 2003, Sligo, Ireland.

    5. Arbyn M, Buntinx F, Van Ranst M, Paraskevardis E, Martin-Hirsch P, Dillner J. Virologic vs cytologic triage of women with equivocal pap smears: a meta analysis of the accuracy to detect high grade intraepithelial neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:280-93.

    6. Cuzick J, Szarewski A, Cubie H, Hulman G, Kitchener H, Luesley D, et al. Management of women who test positive for high-risk types of human papillomavirus: the HART Study. Lancet 2003;362:1871-6.

    7. Manos MM, Kinney WK, Hurley LB, Sherman ME, Shieh-Ngai J, Kurman RJ, et al. Identifying women with cervical neoplasia: using HPV DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou results. JAMA 1999;281:1605-10.

    8. Solomon D, Schifman M, Tarone R, for the ALTS Group. Comparison of three management strategies for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance: baseline results from a randomised trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:293-9.

    9. Pepe MS. eTh statistical evaluation of medical tests for classicfiation and prediction Oxford University Press; 2002.

    10. Alonzo TA, Pepe MS, Moskowitz CS. Sample size calculations for comparative studies of medical tests for detecting presence of disease. Stat Med 2002;21:835-52.

    11. Dunn G. Statistical evaluation of measurement errors. 2nd edn. London: Arnold; 2004.

  • Similar Research Results (1)
  • Metrics
    views in OpenAIRE
    views in local repository
    downloads in local repository

    The information is available from the following content providers:

    From Number Of Views Number Of Downloads
    LSHTM Research Online - IRUS-UK 0 48
Share - Bookmark