Whole, Turret and step methods of rapid rescreening: is there any difference in performance?
We compared the performance of the Whole, Turret and Step techniques of 100% rapid rescreening (RR) in detection of false-negatives 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 kappa 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.
Montemor
Eliana Borin Lopes
EB
Department of Gynecology, UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil. montemor@lexxa.com.br
Roteli-Martins
Cecilia M
CM
Zeferino
Luiz Carlos
LC
Amaral
Rita Goreti
RG
Fonsechi-Carvasan
Gislaine Aparecida
GA
Shirata
Neuza Kasumi
NK
Utagawa
Maria Lúcia
ML
Longatto-Filho
Adhemar
A
Syrjanen
Kari J
KJ
D005188:False Negative Reactions; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000379:methods*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D013647:Task Performance and Analysis; D002577:Uterine Cervical Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis*; D014626:Vaginal Smears / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards