Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

TitleWhole, turret and step methods of rapid rescreening : is there any difference in performance?
Author(s)Montemor, Eliana Borin Lopes
Roteli-Martins, C.
Zeferino, Luiz Carlos
Amaral, Rita Goreti
Fonsechi-Carvasan, Gislaine Aparecida
Shirata, Neuza Kasumi
Utagawa, Maria Lúcia
Longatto Filho, Adhemar
Syrjänen, K.
KeywordsRapid rescreening
Cervical cytology
Issue dateJan-2007
PublisherWiley-Liss Inc
JournalDiagnostic cytopathology
Citation"Diagnostic cytopathology". ISSN 8755-1039. 35:1 (Jan. 2007) 57-60.
Abstract(s)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.
AccessOpen access
Appears in Collections:ICVS - Artigos em revistas internacionais / Papers in international journals

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
RR Unicamp_Lutz.pdf87,61 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Partilhe no FacebookPartilhe no TwitterPartilhe no DeliciousPartilhe no LinkedInPartilhe no DiggAdicionar ao Google BookmarksPartilhe no MySpacePartilhe no Orkut
Exporte no formato BibTex mendeley Exporte no formato Endnote Adicione ao seu ORCID