Assessment of specimen adequacy reproducibility: An Italian experience

Diagnostic Cytopathology

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 224-226

  Montanari, Gioia ^a   Confortini, Massimo ^b   Bellomi, Alberto ^c   Cocchi, Valeria ^d   Dalla Palma, Paolo ^e   D'Ambrosio, Enrico ^f   Giovaggnoli, Maria Rosaria ^g   Navone, Roberto ^h   Ronco, Guglielmo ^a  

^a CPO Piemonte   (Italy)

^b CANCER RESEARCH AND PREVENTION INSTITUTE ISPO   (Italy)

^c CARLO POMA HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^e General Hospital   (Italy)

^f VITO FAZZI HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^g SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

^h Division of Pathology   (Italy)

Author keywords

Adequacy; Interlaboratory agreement; Interobserver variability; Pap smears; Reproducibility

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; ITALY; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER;

FEMALE; HUMANS; ITALY; OBSERVER VARIATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0037379685     PISSN: 87551039     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/dc.10252     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Mitchell H, Medley G. Cellular differences between true negative and false negative Papanicolaou smears. Cytopathology 1993;4:285-290.
2. Ronco G, Montanari G, Aimone V, Parisio F, Segnan N, Valle A, Volante R. Estimating the sensitivity of cervical cytology: errors of interpretation and test limitations. Cytopathology 1996;7:151-158.
3. Confortini M, Ciatto S, Bonardi L, Bulgaresi P, Cariaggi MP, Carozzi F, Cipparone G, Minuti PA, Rubeca T, Biggeri A. Analysis of falsenegative and underreported smears in the Florence district screening program for cervical carcinoma. Tumori 1997;83:880-883.
4. O'Sullivan JP. Observer variation in gynaecological cytopathology. Cytopathology 1998;9:6-14.
5. Confortini M, Biggeri A, Cariaggi MP, Carozzi F, Minuti PA, Russo A, Palli D. Intralaboratory reproducibility in cervical cytology: results of the application of a 100-slide set. Acta Cytol 1993;37:49-54.
6. National Cancer Institute Workshop. The 1991 Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. Acta Cytol 1993;37: 115-124.
7. Ciatto S, Cariaggi MP, Minuti P, Confortini M, Palli D, Pas L, McKee G, Schenck U, Bonaccorsi A, Corradi G, Olivati S, Pieri L, Carretti D, Cocchi V. Interlaboratory reproducibility in reporting inadequate cervical smears: a multicentric multinational study. Cytopathology 1996;7:386-390.
8. Klinkhamer PJJM, Vooijs GP, de Haam AFJ. Intraobserver and interobserver variability in the quality assessment of cervical smears. Acta Cytol 1989;33:215-218.
9. Solomon D, Henry M. Specimen adequacy. Chicago: Compendium on Quality Assurance; 1995. p 90-94.
10. Vooijs GP, van Aspert-van Erp AJM, van't Hof Grootenboer AE, Hanselaar AGJM. Parameters of quality control in cervical cytodiagnosis. Chicago: Compendium on Quality Assurance; 1995. p 95-108.
11. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-174.
12. GISCi. Annual meeting. Bologna: GISCi; 1998.
13. Dalla Palma P. Comment to Bethesda 2001, second round discussion threads, specimen adequacy. Adequacy Terminology/Reporting 2001;1:1.