Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

[Comparison of monolayer specimens and conventional smears].

Authors: M L, Jensen; P B, Fuursted; H, Svanholm;

[Comparison of monolayer specimens and conventional smears].

Abstract

Monolayer specimens were compared with conventional smears in a split sample study. The quality of the specimens, sensitivity, time consumption, and costs were elucidated.Conventional smears and fixated residual material from 1701 women were available.The number of inadequate/less adequate specimens was reduced significantly (p < 0.001). Diagnostic agreement was found in 1531 (90%) of the 1701 cases (kappa = 0.52, SE (kappa) = 0.026). Dysplasia (NOS) was diagnosed in seven monolayer specimens (0.4%) versus 33 smears (1.9%) and ratio atypia/low grade was reduced by 33%, which indicates greater accuracy in diagnosis in monolayers. Histological follow-up showed sensitivities of 95% (monolayers) and 94% (smears). The time consumed (laboratory work, screening) on a smear versus a monolayer specimen was 11.5 minutes versus 9.3 minutes. Utensil costs of a smear are kr. 10.69. compared to kr. 26.50 for a monolayer specimen.The higher costs should be set against the saving in significantly improved specimen quality, improved diagnostic accuracy, and shorter time consumption. The use of the monolayer technique (direct to vial) is recommended to replace the conventional smear.

Keywords

Vaginal Smears, Cytodiagnosis, Humans, Mass Screening, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Cervix Uteri, Prospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Follow-Up Studies, Specimen Handling

  • 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).
    0
    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.
    Average
    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!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!