Publicação

Whole, turret and step methods of rapid rescreening : is there any difference in performance?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Resumo:	We compared the performance of the Whole, Turret and Step techniques of 100% rapid rescreening (RR) in detection of falsenegatives in cervical cytology. We tested RR performance with cytologists trained and among those without training. We revised 1,000 consecutive slides from women participating in an ongoing international screening trial. Two teams of experienced cytologists performed the RR techniques: one trained in RR procedures and the other not trained. The sensitivities in the trained group were Whole 46.6%, Turret 47.4% and Step 50.9%; and in the non-trained group were 38.6, 31.6 and 47.4%, respectively. The j coefficient showed a weak agreement between the two groups of cytologists and between the three RR techniques. The RR techniques are more valuable if used by trained cytologists. In the trained group, we did not observe significant differences between the RR techniques used, whereas in the non-trained group, the Step technique had the best sensitivity.
Autores principais:	Montemor, Eliana Borin Lopes
Outros Autores:	Roteli-Martins, C.; Zeferino, Luiz Carlos; Amaral, Rita Goreti; Fonsechi-Carvasan, Gislaine Aparecida; Shirata, Neuza Kasumi; Utagawa, Maria Lúcia; Longatto Filho, Adhemar; Syrjänen, K.
Assunto:	Rapid rescreening Whole Turret Cervical cytology Step
Ano:	2007
País:	Portugal
Tipo de documento:	artigo
Tipo de acesso:	acesso aberto
Instituição associada:	Universidade do Minho
Idioma:	inglês
Origem:	RepositóriUM - Universidade do Minho

Descrição
Resumo:	We compared the performance of the Whole, Turret and Step techniques of 100% rapid rescreening (RR) in detection of falsenegatives in cervical cytology. We tested RR performance with cytologists trained and among those without training. We revised 1,000 consecutive slides from women participating in an ongoing international screening trial. Two teams of experienced cytologists performed the RR techniques: one trained in RR procedures and the other not trained. The sensitivities in the trained group were Whole 46.6%, Turret 47.4% and Step 50.9%; and in the non-trained group were 38.6, 31.6 and 47.4%, respectively. The j coefficient showed a weak agreement between the two groups of cytologists and between the three RR techniques. The RR techniques are more valuable if used by trained cytologists. In the trained group, we did not observe significant differences between the RR techniques used, whereas in the non-trained group, the Step technique had the best sensitivity.