These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: False negative rate of cervical cytologic smear screening as determined by rapid rescreening.
    Author: Renshaw AA, Bellerose B, DiNisco SA, Minter LJ, Lee KR.
    Journal: Acta Cytol; 1999; 43(3):344-50. PubMed ID: 10349360.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To determine the reliability of the false negative rate (FNR) of cervical cytologic smear screening by rapid rescreening. STUDY DESIGN: A test set of 401 cases (311 originally diagnosed as negative, 74 as atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASCUS], 14 as low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion [LSIL] and 2 as high grade squamous intraepithelial lesion [HSIL]) were rapidly (30 seconds each) rescreened by five cytotechnologists with no prior experience in rapid rescreening, and the FNRs of rapid rescreening and primary screening were determined. These results were compared with each other and with the FNR of primary screening as determined by routine rescreening of all cases with no time limit. RESULTS: All five observers detected a different group of abnormal cases; only 9% of all cases originally diagnosed as ASCUS or worse and 43% of all cases diagnosed as LSIL or worse were detected by all five observers. Nevertheless, using ASCUS as the threshold for an abnormal result, the FNR of rapid rescreening fell into a relatively narrow range, 61-74% (mean, 68.2 +/- 5.0); using LSIL as the threshold resulted in FNRs of rapid rescreening between 25% and 38% (30.0 +/- 4.7). Each observer, using rapid rescreening, detected between one and three false negative cases; routine rescreening of all cases without a time limit detected five cases. The FNR of cervical cytologic smear screening, as determined by rapid rescreening, was 18.4 +/- 6.1% as compared with 14.8% by routine rescreening without a time limit. CONCLUSION: The FNR of rapid rescreening is relatively reproducible even though the individual cases identified varied between reviewers. The FNR of rapid rescreening is similar to that of routine rescreening. Rapid prescreening may be the most logistically simple method to determine the true FNR of a laboratory.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]