Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Health Science Repor...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Health Science Reports
Article . 2025 . Peer-reviewed
License: CC BY NC
Data sources: Crossref
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
PubMed Central
Article . 2025
License: CC BY NC
Data sources: PubMed Central
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Health Science Reports
Article . 2025
Data sources: DOAJ
versions View all 4 versions
addClaim

A Comparative Study of Conventional Pap Smear and Liquid‐Based Cytology

Authors: Kldiashvili Ekaterina; Khuntsaria Irakli; Kekelia Elene; Mamiseishvili Ana; Abuladze Mariam;

A Comparative Study of Conventional Pap Smear and Liquid‐Based Cytology

Abstract

ABSTRACTBackgroundCervical cancer is a major health issue globally, particularly in developing countries where it remains a leading cause of cancer‐related deaths among women. In Georgia, it ranks as the fifth most frequent cancer among women overall and the third among women aged 15−44 years. Approximately 1.60 million women aged 15 years and older in Georgia are at risk of developing cervical cancer. Annually, about 327 women are diagnosed, and 204 die from the disease. Screening for cervical cancer is crucial for reducing incidence and mortality rates. While the conventional Pap smear has been the primary screening method, its limitations in sensitivity and sample adequacy have led to the development of liquid‐based cytology (LBC).Materials and MethodsThis study analyzed 1000 cervical cytology samples from women aged 18−65 years in Georgia, who were gynecologically asymptomatic and not vaccinated for HPV. The median age was 37 years. Informed consent was obtained for all participants. Samples were collected using ThinPrep reagents (Hologic) and processed within 2 h. Smears were prepared using the ThinPrep 2000 Processor, fixed in absolute alcohol for 30 min, and stained according to the Papanicolaou protocol. The Bethesda 2001 System terminology was used for reporting. Smears were evaluated by light microscopy and archived per Georgian medical data requirements.ResultsThe study found significant differences between the two screening methods. LBC showed a higher rate of satisfactory smears and better detection rates for negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy—NILM (89.4% vs. 80.3% for conventional Pap smear). Unsatisfactory smears were significantly lower with LBC (1.33% vs. 7.33%). Detection rates for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS), atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC‐H), low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL), and high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) were also improved with LBC, indicating higher diagnostic accuracy.ConclusionLBC outperforms the conventional Pap smear in cervical cancer screening by providing higher sample adequacy, better detection rates, and greater diagnostic accuracy. Implementing LBC more widely in Georgia could enhance early detection rates and reduce cervical cancer incidence and mortality, particularly in high‐risk populations. These findings support the adoption of LBC as a superior screening method in clinical practice.

Related Organizations
Keywords

pap smear, Bethesda system, liquid‐based cytology, cervical cancer screening, sample adequacy, R, Medicine, diagnostic accuracy, Original Research

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    2
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
2
Top 10%
Average
Average
Green
gold