Rapid rescreening of cervical smears by cytopathologists: Experience at a WHO collaborating centre for research in cytology

Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology

Volumn 47, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 8-10

  Gupta, Sanjay ^a   Sodhani, Pushpa ^a   Singh, Veena ^a   Pant, J N ^a   Chachra, K L ^a   Bhatt, N C ^a   Sardana, S ^a  

^a MAULANA AZAD MEDICAL COLLEGE   (India)

Author keywords

Cervical cytology; Epithelial cell abnormalities; Quality control; Rapid rescreening

Indexed keywords

ADENOCARCINOMA; ATYPICAL GLANDULAR CELLS OF UNDETERMINED SIGNIFICANCE; ATYPICAL SQUAMOUS CELLS OF UNKNOWN SIGNIFICANCE; CANCER SCREENING; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; CYTOPATHOLOGIST; CYTOPATHOLOGY; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PATHOLOGIST; QUALITY CONTROL; RAPID RESCREENING; REVIEW; SCREENING; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX CYTOLOGY; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; CERVIX UTERI; FEMALE; HUMANS; QUALITY CONTROL; UTERINE CERVICAL DYSPLASIA; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

EID: 4444318662     PISSN: 03774929     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (Public Law 100-578). Fed Reg 1990; 55:9538-74.
2. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration: Medicare, Medicaid and CLIA Programs, Amended 1988. Fed Reg 1992; 57:493-1257.
3. Hutchinson ML. Assessing the costs and benefits of alternative rescreening strategies (edit). Acta Cytol 1996; 40:4-8.
4. Melamed MR, Flehinger BJ. Re-evaluation of quality assurance in the cytology laboratory (edit). Acta Cytol 1992; 36:461-5.
5. Rosenthal DL, Acosta D, Peters RK. Computer assisted rescreening of clinically important false negative cervical smears using the PAPNET testing system. Acta Cytol 1996; 40:120-6.
6. Wilbur DC, Bonfiglio TA, Rutkowski MA et al. Sensitivity of the Auto Pap 300 Q/C System for cervical cytologic abnormalities; biopsy data confirmation. Acta Cytol 1996; 40:127-32.
7. Baker A, Melcher D, Smith R. Role of rescreening of cervical smears in internal quality control. J Clin Pathol 1995; 48: 1002-4.
8. Cross PA. Rapid rescreening of cervical smears as a quality control method. Cytopathology 1997; 8:79-84.
9. Johnson SJ, Hair T, Gibson L, Ridley B, Wadehra V. An assessment of partial rescreening as an internal quality control method for cervical smears. Cytopathology 1995; 6:376-87.
10. Dudding N. Rapid rescreen; a viable alternative to 1:10. Diagn Cytopathol 2001; 24:219-21.
11. Abryn M, Schenck U. Detection of false negative Pap smears by rapid reviewing. A meta-analysis. Acta Cytol 2000; 44: 949-57.
12. Lemay CA. 100% rapid (parial) rescreening for quality assurance. Acta Cytol 1999; 43:86-8.
13. Coleman DV, Baker R. Sensitivity of partial rescreening in cervical cytology. Acta Cytol 1997; 41:1631-3.
14. Mitchell H, Medley G. Differences between Papanicolaou smears with correct and incorrect diagnoses. Cytopathology 1995; 6:368-75.
15. Wolfendale M. Internal quality control with reference to rapid rescreening. Cytopathology 1995; 6:365-7.