Rapid (partial) prescreening of cervical smears: The quality control method of choice?

Cytopathology

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 191-199

  Brooke, David ^a   Dudding, N ^a   Sutton, J ^a  

^a LEEDS TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cervical cytology; Partial prescreening; Quality assurance; Quality control; Rapid review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LABORATORY PERSONNEL; LABORATORY TEST; MEDICAL EXAMINATION; MEDICAL PRACTICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; SCREENING TEST; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY;

FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL DISEASES; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0036378093     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2303.2002.00410.x     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Baker A, Melcher MD. Rapid cervical cytology screening. Cytopathology 1991; 2: 299-301.
2. Faraker CA. Partial re-screening of all negative smears: an improved method of quality assurance in laboratories undertaking cervical screening. [Erratum Cytopathology 1993; 4: 193.] Cytopathology 1993; 4: 47-50.
3. Johnson SJ, Hair T, Gibson C, Ridley B, Wadehra V. An assessment of partial re-screening as an internal quality control method for cervical smears. Cytopathology 1995; 6: 376-87.
4. NHSCSP. Achievable standards, benchmarks for reporting, criteria for evaluating cervical cytopathology (including revised performance indicators), 2nd edn. 2000; 1.
5. British Society for Clinical Cytology. Recommended Code of Practice for Laboratories Providing a Cytopathology Service. Cytopathology 1997; 8 (Suppl. 1).
6. Shield PW, Cox NC. The sensitivity of rapid (partial) review of cervical smears. Cytopathology 1998; 9: 84-92.
7. Dudding N, Hewer EM, Lancucki L, Rice S. Rapid screening: a comparative study. Cytopathology 2001; 12: 235-48.
8. Faraker CA, Boxer ME. Rapid review (partial re-screening) of cervical cytology. Four years experience and quality assurance implications. J Clin Pathol 1996; 49: 587-91.
9. Faraker CA. Rapid review: current practice (Invited Commentary). Cytopathology 2001; 12: 249-50.
10. Renshaw AA, Bellerose B, DiNisco SA, Minter LJ, Lee KR. False negative rate of cervical cytologic smear screening as determined by rapid rescreening. Acta Cytol 1999; 43: 344-50.
11. Mitchell H, Medley G. Differences between Papanicolau smears with correct and incorrect diagnoses. Cytopathology 1995; 6: 368-75.
12. Robertson JH, Woodend B. Negative cytology preceding cervical cancer: causes and prevention. J Clin Pathol 1993; 46: 700-2.
13. Turner J, Brennan A, Dixon S. Final Report to the NHS Cervical Screening Programme. The costs and outcomes of cervical re-screening. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield School of Health and Related Research, University Sheffield; 1999.