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

Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorAlderisio, M.-
dc.contributor.authorBranca, M.-
dc.contributor.authorEržen, M.-
dc.contributor.authorLongatto Filho, Adhemar-
dc.contributor.authorDerchain, S. F.-
dc.contributor.authorTatti, S.-
dc.contributor.authorVighi, S.-
dc.contributor.authorRoteli-Martins, C.-
dc.contributor.authorLeoncini, L.-
dc.contributor.authorMaeda, Marina Yoshiê Sakamoto-
dc.contributor.authorMontis, D. M.-
dc.contributor.authorGontijo, R.-
dc.contributor.authorSarian, L. O.-
dc.contributor.authorSyrjänen, K.-
dc.identifier.citation"Acta Cytologica". ISSN 0001-5547. 51:6 (Nov. 2007) 872–881.eng
dc.description.abstractObjective: The recently developed software (CONQUISTADOR), capable of computing all intralaboratory and interlaboratory quality control (QC) indicators, was used to evaluate the diagnostic agreement among 4 cytology laboratories participating in the LAMS Study. Study Design: The study was an interlaboratory exchange of specially designed 5 slide sets, each comprising 20 (conventional cytology) slides. At the first step, 80 slides (with "clear-cut" cases) were divided into four sets (A, B, C, D) of 20 specimens, each including inadequate and negative cases as well as in different proportions of all diagnostic TBS 2001 categories. In the second round, a fifth set (E) of 20 slides ("difficult cases") was designed, with all diagnostic categories, ASC and AGC included. Common measures of reproducibility (? and weighted ?), accuracy (SE, SP, PPV, NPV) and 3 indices of diagnostic variability were calculated for sets A-D and set E, separately. Results: For the 5 slide sets together, the weighted ? was 0.8 (95% CI 0.76-0.85), which is the lower limit of the "almost perfect" ranking of ? statistics, indicating an excellent interlaboratory agreement. The interlaboratory reproducibility was lower only for the difficult set (E). Similarly, the sensitivity for set E (70.0%) was lower than that (92.1%) for sets A-D. The diagnostic variability indices were not substantially different between the difficult (set E) and clear-cut (sets A-D) cases. Conclusion: High interlaboratory reproducibility was obtained for sets A-D ("clear-cut" cases), while more interlaboratory variation was evident in the difficult samples. The new CONQUISTADOR software is a valuable tool in calculating the indicators needed in this intralaboratory and interlaboratory QC. © The International Academy of Cytology.por
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Commission - INCO-DEV Programme Contract ICA4-CT-2001-10013por
dc.description.sponsorshipLearning Activity Management System (LAMS)por
dc.publisherKarger Publisherseng
dc.subjectDiagnostic accuracy indexeng
dc.subjectQuality controleng
dc.subjectPap smeareng
dc.subjectPerformance indicatorseng
dc.titleInterlaboratory quality control in gynecologic cytopathology using the novel conquistador software : interobserver reproducibility in the Latin American screening studyeng
dc.subject.wosScience & Technologypor
sdum.journalActa Cytologicapor
Appears in Collections:ICVS - Artigos em revistas internacionais / Papers in international journals

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
AC-03255-06_PTAInterlaboratory paper.pdf504,33 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