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

Conventional cervical cytologic smears vs. ThinPrep smears. A paired comparison study on cervical cytology.

Authors: A, Ferenczy; J, Robitaille; E, Franco; J, Arseneau; R M, Richart; T C, Wright;

Conventional cervical cytologic smears vs. ThinPrep smears. A paired comparison study on cervical cytology.

Abstract

To compare the time required for evaluation, the diagnostic accuracy and quality of conventional glass slide smears vs. ThinPrep smears in 365 women.Both smears were obtained at the same time using the Accellon Combi cervical biosampler. Histology served as the diagnostic "gold standard."The average screening time was 1 minute, 23 seconds, shorter per smear with the ThinPrep method as compared to the conventional glass slide (P < .001). Direct diagnostic agreement between the two smear methods was obtained in 311 of 364 evaluable smears (85.4%, kappa = .63). Despite the relatively high rate of "adequate but limited by absence of transformation zone components" observed with the ThinPrep method, the sensitivity and specificity of the ThinPrep method was slightly greater but not statistically significantly different than the conventional technique, irrespective of the disease categories (low and high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion and invasive cancer).The shorter time required to screen ThinPrep smears compared to conventional smears in this study was not sufficiently important to offset the current unit price for preparing ThinPrep smears.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Vaginal Smears, Time Factors, Predictive Value of Tests, Humans, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Neoplasms, Squamous Cell, Adenocarcinoma, Uterine Cervical Dysplasia, Sensitivity and Specificity

  • 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).
    69
    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 1%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
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!
69
Top 10%
Top 1%
Top 10%
Related to Research communities
Cancer Research
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!