Observer variation in gynaecological cytopathology

Cytopathology

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 6-14

  O'Sullivan, J P ^a  

^a ST RICHARD S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER SCREENING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DYSKARYOSIS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; UTERINE ENDOCERVIX;

CERVIX UTERI; CYTODIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGY; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0031885757     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2303.1998.00220.x     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Warnke RA, Strauchen JA, Burke JS et al. Morphologic types of diffuse large-cell lymphoma. Cancer 1982; 50: 690-5.
2. Cramer SF, Roth LM, Ulbright TM et al. Evaluation of the reproducibility of the World Health Organisation classification of common ovarian cancers with emphasis on methodology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1987; 111: 819-29.
3. Dalton LW, Page DL, Dupont WD. Histologic grading of breast carcinoma. A reproducibility study. Cancer 1994; 73: 2765-70.
4. Robbins P, Pinder S, de Klerk N et al. Histological grading of breast carcinomas: a study of interobserver agreement. Hum Pathol 1995; 26: 873-9.
5. Siegler EF. Microdiagnosis of carcinoma in situ of the uterine cervix. A comparative study of pathologists' diagnoses. Cancer 1956; 9: 463-9.
6. Ismail SM, Colclough AB, Dinnen JS et al. Observer variation in histopathological diagnosis and grading of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Br Med J 1989; 298: 707-10.
7. Carter PS, Sheffield JP, Shepherd N et al. Interobserver variation in the reporting of the histopathological grading of anal intraepithelial neoplasia. J Clin Pathol 1994; 47: 1032-4.
8. Seybolt JF, Johnson WD. Cervical cytodiagnostic problems - a survey. Am J Obstet Gynec 1971; 109: 1089-103.
9. Confortini M, Biggeri A, Cariaggi MP et al. Intralaboratory reproducibility in cervical cytology. Results of the application of a 100-slide set. Acta Cytol 1993; 37: 49-54.
10. Jones S, Thomas GDH, Williamson P. Observer variation in the assessment of adequacy and neoplasis in cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 1996; 40: 226-34.
11. Lambourne A, Lederer H. Effects of observer variation in population screening for cervical carcinoma. J Clin Pathol 1973; 26; 564-9.
12. Evans DMD, Shelley G, Cleary B, Baldwin Y. Observer variation and quality control of cytodiagnosis. J Clin Pathol 1974; 27: 945-50.
13. Yobs AR, Plott AE, Hicklin MD et al. Retrospective evaluation of gynecologic cytodiagnosis. II. Interlaboratory reproducibility as shown in rescreening large consecutive samples of reported cases. Acta Cytol 1987; 31: 900-10.
14. Branca M, Duca PG, Riti MG et al. Reliability and accuracy of reporting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) in 15 laboratories throughout Italy: phase I of a national programme of external quality control in cervical screening. Cytopathology 1996; 7: 159-72
15. O'Sullivan JP, Ismail SM, Barnes WSF et al. Interobserver variation in the diagnosis and grading of dyskaryosis in cervical smears: specialist cytopathologists compared with non-specialists. J Clin Pathol 1994; 47: 515-8.
16. Klinkhamer PJJM, Vooijs GP, de Haan AFJ. Intraobserver and interobserver variability in the quality assessment of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1989; 33: 215-8.
17. Mitchell H. Consistency of reporting endocervical cells. An intralaboratory and interlaboratory assessment. Acta Cytol 1994; 38: 310-4.
18. Rutledge CM, van Wolkenten RV, Levin JS. Laboratory differences in cervical cytology. Fam Pract Res J 1991; 11: 171-7.
19. O'Sullivan JP, Ismail S, Barnes WSF et al. Inter- and intra-observer variation in the reporting of cervical smears: specialist cytopathologists versus histopathologists. Cytopathology 1996; 7: 78-89.
20. Koss LG, Hicklin MD. Standards of adequacy of cytologic examination of the female genital tract. Conclusions of study group on cytology. Obstet Gynec 1974; 43: 792-3
21. Bonfiglio TA, Cardin V, Drake M et al. Replies to questions on quality assurance measures in cytopathology. Acta Cytol 1988; 32: 913-39.
22. Achievable Standards, Benchmarks for Reporting and Criteria for Evaluating Cervical Cytopathology. Report of a Working Party set up by RCPath, BSCC and NHSCSP. NHS CSP Publication no. 1, 1995.
23. The 1991 Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytogical diagnoses. Diagn Cytopathol 1993; 9: 235-46.
24. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Measurement 1960; 20: 37-46.
25. Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 1968; 70: 213-20
26. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-74.
27. Svanholm H, Starklint H, Gundersen HJG et al. Reproducibility of histomorphologic diagnoses with special reference to the kappa statistic. APMIS 1989; 97: 689-98
28. Newcombe RG. Personal communication.
29. Brennan RL, Prediger DJ. Coefficient kappa: some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educ Psychol Measurement 1981; 41: 687-99.
30. Holman CDJ, James IR, Heenan PJ et al. An improved method of analysis of observer variation between pathologists. Histopathology 1982; 6: 581-9.
31. Masters N. Grading of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (letter). Br Med J 1989; 298: 1031.
32. Jones MH, Singer A, Jenkins D. The mildly abnormal smear: patient anxiety and choice of management. J R Soc Med 1996; 89: 257-60.
33. Morris JA. Information and observer disagreement in histopathology. Histopathology 1994; 25: 123-8.
34. Lieblich LM. On making a histologic diagnosis. Are explicit criteria always necessary to make a correct histologic diagnosis? Am J Dermatopathol 1980; 2: 349-56.
35. Foot NC. Cytologic diagnosis in suspected pulmonary cancer. Critical analysis of smears from 1000 persons. Am J Clin Pathol 1955; 25: 223-40.
36. Evans DMD, Hudson EA, Brown CL et al. Terminology in gynaecological cytopathology: report of the working party of the British Society for Clinical Cytology. J Clin Pathol 1986; 39: 933-44.
37. Borderline nuclear changes in cervical smears: guidelines on their recognition and management. A report of the Joint National Co-ordinating Network, British Society for Clinical Cytology, and the Royal College of Pathologists' Working Party. J Clin Pathol 1994; 47: 481-92
38. Sherman ME, Schiffman MH, Erozan YS, Wacholder S, Kurman RJ. The Bethesda system. A proposal for reporting abnormal cervical smears based on the reproducibility of cytopathologic diagnoses. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1992; 116: 1155-8.
39. Rubin A. The grading of dyskaryosis (letter). Cytopathology 1997; 8: 138-9.
40. Graham RM. The definition of a dyskaryotic cell. Acta Cytol 1957; 1: 23.
41. Fisher ER. Comment on 'Interobserver reproducibility of histopathological features in stage II breast cancer', by KW Gilchrist et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1985; 5: 11-13
42. Di Tomasso JP, Ramzy I, Moody DR. Glandular lesions of the cervix. Validity of cytologic criteria used to differentiate reactive changes, glandular intraepithelial lesions and adenocarcinoma. Acta Cytol 1996; 40: 1127-35.
43. Buckley CH, Butler EB, Fox H. Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Clin Pathol 1982; 35: 1-13.
44. Robertson AJ, Anderson JM, Swanson Beck J et al. Observer variability in histopathological reporting of cervical biopsy specimens. J Clin Pathol 1989; 42: 231-8.
45. Anderson M. Grading of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (letter). Br Med J 1989; 298: 1030.
46. Young IT, Verbeek PW, Mayall BH. Characterization of chromatin distribution in cell nuclei. Cytometry 1986; 7: 467-74.
47. Sherman ME, Schiffman MH, Lorincz AT et al. Toward objective quality assurance in cervical cytopathology. Correlation of cytopathologic diagnoses with detection of high-risk human papillomavirus types. Am J Clin Pathol 1994; 102: 182-7.
48. Buxton EJ, Luesley DM, Shafi MI, Rollason T. Colposcopically directed punch biopsy: a potentially misleading investigation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 98: 1273-6.
49. Ng ABP. Current status of practice and training in cytology. II: A survey of cytology training in pathology training programs. Am J Clin Pathol 1980; 73: 217-31.
50. Greening SE, Grohs DH, Guidos BJ. The AcCell series 2000 as a support system for training and evaluation in educational and clinical settings. Acta Cytol 1997; 41: 153-9.
51. Langley FA. Quality control in histopathology and diagnostic cytology. Histopathology 1978; 2: 3-18.