The accuracy of the papanicolaou smear in the screening and diagnostic settings

Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease

Volumn 12, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 269-275

  Cárdenas Turanzas, Marylou ^a   Follen, Michele ^a   Nogueras Gonzalez, Graciela M ^a   Benedet, J L ^b   Beck, J Robert ^c   Cantor, Scott B ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c FOX CHASE CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; Cervix neoplasms; Diagnosis; Screening; Sensitivity and specificity

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; WART VIRUS;

ADULT; AREA UNDER CURVE; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; COLPOSCOPY; FEMALE; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; ROC CURVE; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 55149120933     PISSN: 10892591     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0b013e31816b44bc     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Pham B, Earle N, Rabel K, Follen M, Scheurer M. Maximizing the diversity of participants in a phase II clinical trial of optical technologies to detect cervical neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol 2007;107(S1):208-14.
2. Guillaud M, Benedet JL, Cantor SB, Staerkel G, Follen M, MacAulay C. DNA ploidy compared with human papilloma virus testing (Hybrid Capture II) and conventional cervical cytology as a primary screening test for cervical high-grade lesions and cancer in 1555 patients with biopsy confirmation. Cancer 2006;107:309-18.
3. Malpica A, Matisic JP, Niekirk DV, Crum CP, Staerkel GA, Yamal JM, et al. Kappa statistics to measure interrater and intrarater agreement for 1790 cervical biopsy specimens among twelve pathologists: qualitative histopathologic analysis and methodologic issues. Gynecol Oncol 2005;99:S38-52.
4. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O'Connor D, Prey M, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA 2002;287:2114-9.
5. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44:837-45.
6. Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews in health care: systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ 2001;323:157-62.
7. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, Bastian LA, Hasselblad V, Hickey JD, et al. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132:810-9.
8. Simsir A, Ioffe OB, Bourquin P, Brooks SE, Henry M. Repeat cervical cytology at the time of colposcopy. Is there an added benefit? Acta Cytol 2001;45:23-7.
9. Zardawi IM, Rode JW. Clinical value of repeat Pap smear at the time of colposcopy. Acta Cytol 2002;46:495-8.
10. Begg CB. Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Stat Med 1987;6:411-23.
11. Project UoZJCC. Visual inspection with acetic acid for cervical-cancer screening: test qualities in a primary-care setting. Lancet 1999;353:869-73.
12. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Refining clinical diagnosis with likelihood ratios. Lancet 2005;365:1500-5.