Evaluation of 100% rapid rescreening of negative cervical smears as a quality assurance measure

dc.creatorManrique, EJC
dc.creatorAmaral, RG
dc.creatorSouza, NLA
dc.creatorTavares, SBN
dc.creatorAlbuquerque, ZBP
dc.creatorZeferino, LC
dc.date2006
dc.dateJUN
dc.date2014-11-16T07:55:46Z
dc.date2015-11-26T16:21:15Z
dc.date2014-11-16T07:55:46Z
dc.date2015-11-26T16:21:15Z
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-28T23:03:18Z
dc.date.available2018-03-28T23:03:18Z
dc.identifierCytopathology. Blackwell Publishing, v. 17, n. 3, n. 116, n. 120, 2006.
dc.identifier0956-5507
dc.identifierWOS:000237739200003
dc.identifier10.1111/j.1365-2303.2006.00368.x
dc.identifierhttp://www.repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/65732
dc.identifierhttp://www.repositorio.unicamp.br/handle/REPOSIP/65732
dc.identifierhttp://repositorio.unicamp.br/jspui/handle/REPOSIP/65732
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioslatinoamericanos.uchile.cl/handle/2250/1267923
dc.descriptionObjective: The objective of this study was to compare the performance of 100% rapid rescreening, 10% random rescreening and the review of smears selected on the basis of clinical criteria, as a method of internal quality control of cervical smears classified as negative during routine screening. Methods: A total of 3149 smears were analysed, 173 of which were classified as positive and 2887 as negative, while 89 smears were considered unsatisfactory. The smears classified as negative were submitted to 100% rapid rescreening, 10% random rescreening, and rescreening based on clinical criteria. The rescreening stages were blinded and results were classified according to the Bethesda 2001 terminology. Six cytologists participated in this study, two of whom were responsible for routine screening while the other four alternated in carrying out rescreening so that no individual reviewed the same slide more than once. Results: The 100% rapid rescreening method identified 92 suspect smears, of which 42 were considered positive at final diagnosis. Of the 289 smears submitted to the 10% rescreening method, four were considered abnormal but only one was confirmed positive in the final diagnosis. Of the 690 smears rescreened on the basis of clinical criteria, 10 were considered abnormal and eight received a positive final diagnosis. Conclusions: The 100% rapid rescreening method is more efficient at detecting false-negative results than 10% random rescreening or rescreening on the basis of clinical criteria, and is recommended as an internal quality control method.
dc.description17
dc.description3
dc.description116
dc.description120
dc.languageen
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing
dc.publisherOxford
dc.publisherInglaterra
dc.relationCytopathology
dc.relationCytopathology
dc.rightsfechado
dc.sourceWeb of Science
dc.subjectcervical cancer
dc.subjectcervical cytology
dc.subjectquality control
dc.subjectrapid screening
dc.subject10% random rescreening
dc.subjectCytology
dc.subjectReevaluation
dc.subjectGuidelines
dc.titleEvaluation of 100% rapid rescreening of negative cervical smears as a quality assurance measure
dc.typeArtículos de revistas


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución