1999
DOI: 10.1080/003130299104765
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Detection of false-negative papanicolaou smears by rapid rescreening in a large routine cervical cytology laboratory

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

1
12
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
1
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…3,6,8,9,17,28 Sometimes RR is preceded by targeted full review, and all slides fully rescreened are no longer subjected to RR. 6,8,30,34 Cross 2 included borderline smears. The quantitative impact of these technical aspects on the detection rate of false negatives could not be analyzed sufficiently because the number of references was too small and descriptive details were often lacking in several studies.…”
Section: Technical Aspects Influencing the Performance Of Rrmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3,6,8,9,17,28 Sometimes RR is preceded by targeted full review, and all slides fully rescreened are no longer subjected to RR. 6,8,30,34 Cross 2 included borderline smears. The quantitative impact of these technical aspects on the detection rate of false negatives could not be analyzed sufficiently because the number of references was too small and descriptive details were often lacking in several studies.…”
Section: Technical Aspects Influencing the Performance Of Rrmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most studies detected an FNR for LSIL of ≤ 10% using the 100% RR method. 8,9,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] In our case, the FNR of LSIL is 6.7%, a relatively low figure that compares with those in other studies, yet is closest to the results of Farrell et al 17 The high variability of LSIL FNRs and other abnormalities can be partly explained by the difference in sensitivity of primary screening. The higher percentage of missed LSIL cases in primary screening can undoubtedly increase the possibility of rediscovering them in the subsequent QC review.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 30%
“…21 The detection of false negative LSIL by the RR is common in the majority of papers published. 8,9,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] The fact that human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is cytomorphologically characteristic makes it more readily detectable even at a very fast pace. Most studies detected an FNR for LSIL of ≤ 10% using the 100% RR method.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…7,8 Various authors have analyzed the sensitivity of RR and have concluded that, despite varying sensitivity gains, it is an effective qualityassurance procedure. 6,[9][10][11] The seeding of abnormal slides into routine work was documented by Hindman in the 1970s. 12 Biopsyconfirmed, high-grade smears were inserted into the daily work as a result of the laboratory's decreasing high-grade detection rate.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%