Rapid pre-screening: A validated quality assurance measure in cervical cytology

Cytopathology

Volumn 14, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 275-280

  Smith, Joan ^a   Nicholas, D ^a   Boyd, K ^a   Deacon Smith, R ^a  

^a Poole Roy Bournemouth NHS Trusts ^*  (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cervical cytology; Pre screening; Quality assurance; Rapid review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; VALIDATION PROCESS;

FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVICAL DISEASES; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 0141922929     PISSN: 09565507     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2303.2003.00062.x     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Achievable Standards, Benchmarks for Reporting, Criteria for Evaluating Cervical Cytopathology. NHSCSP Publication No. 1, October 1995.
2. Quality Assurance Guidelines for the Cervical Screening Programme. NHSCSP Publication No. 3, January 1996.
3. Achievable Standards, Benchmarks for Reporting, Criteria for Evaluating Cervical Cytopathology, 2nd edn including Revised Performance Indicators. NHSCSP Publication No. 1, May 2000.
4. Baker A, Melcher MD. Rapid cervical cytology screening. Cytopathology 1991;2:299-301.
5. Faraker CA. Partial re-screening of all negative smears: an improved method of quality assurance in laboratories undertaking cervical screening. Cytopathology 1993;4: 47-50.
6. Baker A, Melcher D, Smith R. Role of re-screening of cervical smears in internal quality control. J Clin Pathol 1995;48:1002-4.
7. Dudding N. Rapid re-screening of cervical smears: an improved method of quality control. Cytopathology 1995; 6:95-9.
8. Dudding N, Hewer EM, Lancucki I, Rice S. Rapid screening: a comparative study. Cytopathology 2001;12: 235-48.
9. Farrell DJ, Gibson LM, Wadehra V. Rapid screening of cervical smears as a method of internal quality control. For how long should we rescreen? Acta Cytol 1997;41: 251-60.
10. Faraker CA. Rapid review. Cytopathology 1998;9:71-6.
11. Shield PW, Cox NC. The sensitivity of rapid (partial) review of cervical smears. Cytopathology 1998;9:84-92.
12. 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.
13. Renshaw AA, Cronin JA, Minter LJ et al. Performance characteristics of rapid (30 second) pre-screening. Am J Clin Pathol 1999;111:517-22.
14. Baker RW, O'Sullivan JP, Hanley J, Coleman DV. The characteristics of false negative cervical smears - implications for the UK cervical screening programme. J Clin Pathol 1999;52:358-62.
15. Mitchell H, Medley G. Differences between Papanicolaou smears with correct and incorrect diagnoses. Cytopathology 1995;6:368-75.
16. Robertson JH, Woodend B. Negative cytology preceding cervical cancer: causes and prevention. J Clin Pathol 1993;46:700-2.