“…The proportion of abnormal findings in our study (47.6%) was comparable to Arendt et al (43%) (4) and Alfaro et al (47.6%) (2). Different researchers have also defined unfavorable consequences differently; thus the reported results differ vastly in some cases (3, 6, 14, 17-19, 25). Some have held all the false positive cases as non-significant (6, 8, 10, 11, 17), and false negatives were only considered as important discrepancies when they had caused adverse effects (8, 10, 13, 16, 26).…”