
AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate the 2 methods of cytologic screening to detect abnormalities of the cervical epithelium.MethodsThis study with 3 groups of women was performed at Selcuk University Meram Medical School between January 2004 and March 2006. In one group (paired sample for specimen collection) women were screened with conventional cytology; in another group (paired sample for specimen collection) they were screened with liquid‐based cytology; and in the third group (split sample for specimen collection) they were screened by both methods.ResultsThe rate of unsatisfactory results was lower in the liquid‐based than in the conventional cytology group (6.1% vs. 2.6%; P < 0.05). More smears containing atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance were detected by the liquid‐based method, but the difference was not statistically significant. Also, no statistically significant differences between liquid‐based and conventional cytology were observed in the detection of other epithelial abnormalities (P > 0.05).ConclusionThe liquid‐based and conventional cytology methods were found to be equivalent in the detection of cervical epithelial abnormalities.
Adult, Vaginal Smears, conventional cytology, Biopsy, Cytological Techniques, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Cervix Uteri, Middle Aged, Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Sensitivity and Specificity, Specimen Handling, cervical cytology, epithelial abnormalities, Humans, liquid-based cytology, Female
Adult, Vaginal Smears, conventional cytology, Biopsy, Cytological Techniques, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Cervix Uteri, Middle Aged, Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Sensitivity and Specificity, Specimen Handling, cervical cytology, epithelial abnormalities, Humans, liquid-based cytology, Female
| 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). | 20 | |
| 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). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
