Choosing battles or excuses in gynecologic cytology

Cancer

Volumn 114, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 141-143

  Renshaw, Andrew A ^a  

^a BAPTIST HOSPITAL OF MIAMI   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; CYTOLOGY; EDITORIAL; GYNECOLOGIC DISEASE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FEMALE; HUMANS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 47049102651     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.23510     Document Type: Editorial

References (25)

1. Renshaw AA. Analysis of error in calculating the false negative rate for interpretation of cervicovaginal smears: the need to review abnormal cases. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 1997;81:264-271.
2. Renshaw AA, DiNisco SA, Minter LJ, Cibas ES. A more accurate measure of the false negative rate of Pap smear screening is obtained by determining the false negative rate of the rescreening process. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 1997;81:272-276.
3. Renshaw AA, Bellerose B, DiNisco SA, Minter LJ, Lee KR. The false negative rate of Pap smear screening as determined by rapid rescreening. Acta Cytol. 1999;43:344-350.
4. Renshaw AA. A practical problem with calculating the false negative rate of Papanicolaou smear interpretation by rescreening negative cases alone. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 1999;87:351-353.
5. Renshaw AA, Lezon KM, Wilbur DC. The human false negative rate of rescreening in a two-arm prospective clinical trial. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2001;93:106-110.
6. Renshaw AA. Estimating the percentage of Papanicolaou smears that can be reproducibly identified. Modeling Pap smear interpretation based on multiple blinded rescreeenings. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2001;93:241-245.
7. Renshaw AA. Measuring sensitivity in gynecologic cytology. A review. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2002;96:210-217.
8. Baker A, Melcher DH. Rapid cervical cytology screening. Cytopathology. 1991;2:299-301.
9. Faraker CA. Partial rescreening of all negative smears: an improved method of quality assurance in laboratories undertaking cervical screening. Cytopathology. 1993;4:47-50.
10. Farrell DJ, Bilkhu S, Gibson LM, Cummings L, Wadehra V. Rapid screening of cervical smears as a method of internal quality control. For how long should we rescreen? Acta Cytol. 1997;41:251-260.
11. Dudding N. Rapid rescreening of cervical smears: an improved method of quality control. Cytopathology. 1995;6:95-99.
12. Johnson SJ, Hair T, Gibson L, Ridley B, Wadhera V. An assessment of partial rescreening as an internal quality control method for cervical smears. Cytopathology. 1995;6:376-387.
13. Arbyn M, Schenck U. Detection of false negative Pap smears by rapid reviewing. A meta-analysis. Acta Cytol. 2000;44:949-957.
14. Arbyn M, Schenck U, Ellison E, Hanselaar A. Meta-analysis of the accuracy of rapid prescreening relative to full screening of Pap smears. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2003;99:9-16.
15. Simon TR, Ricci A. The efficiency of rapid scanning of vaginal and cervical smears. Transactions of the 5th Annual Meeting of the Intersociety Cytology Council, Augusta, Georgia, 1957.
16. Cross PA. Rapid rescreening of cervical smears as a quality control method. Cytopathology. 1997;8:79-84.
17. Renshaw AA, Cronin JA, Minter LJ, Whitman T, Jiroutek M, Cibas ES. Performance characteristics of rapid (30-second) prescreening: implications for calculating the false-negative rate and comparison with other quality assurance techniques. Am J Clin Pathol. 1999;111:517-522.
18. Renshaw AA. An accurate and precise methodology for routine determination of the false negative rate of Papanicolaou smear screening. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2001;93:86-92.
19. Renshaw AA. Rescreening in cervical cytology for quality control. When bad data are worse than no data, or what works, what doesn't, and why. Clin Lab Med. 2003;23:695-708.
20. Renshaw AA. Quality assessment in the age of machine aided screening of cervical cytology: changing art into science with prescreening. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2004;102:345-347.
21. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments. Rules and regulations. Fed Reg. 1990;55:9538-9574.
22. Tavares SBdN, Alves de Sousa NL, Manrique EJC, Pinheiro de Albuquerque ZB, Zeferino LC, Amaral RG. Comparison of the performance of rapid prescreening, 10% random review, and clinical risk criteria as methods of internal quality control in cervical cytopathology. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2008;114:165-170.
23. Djemli A, Khetani K, Case B, Auger M. Correlation of cytotechnologists' parameters with their performance in rapid prescreening of Papanicolaou smears. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2006;108:306-310.
24. Renshaw AA. Rapid prescreening of Papanicolaou smears: a practical and efficient quality control strategy [letter]. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2006;108;267-268.
25. Deschenes M, Renshaw AA, Auger M. Measuring the significance of workload on the performance of cytotechnologists in gynecologic cytology: a study using rapid prescreening. Cancer (Cancer Cytopathol). 2008;114:149-154.