A three-armed trial of the ThinPrep Imaging System
We compared the performance of the ThinPrep (TP) Imaging System (TIS) with manual reading of TP slides (TPM) and with manual reading of the paired conventional Pap smear (PS) in terms of sensitivity for and positive predictive value (PPV) of high‐grade disease and productivity. The study consisted o...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Diagnostic cytopathology 2007-02, Vol.35 (2), p.96-102 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 102 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 96 |
| container_title | Diagnostic cytopathology |
| container_volume | 35 |
| creator | Roberts, Jennifer M. Thurloe, Julia K. Bowditch, Ron C. Hyne, Suzanne G. Greenberg, Merle Clarke, Joanne M. Biro, Clare |
| description | We compared the performance of the ThinPrep (TP) Imaging System (TIS) with manual reading of TP slides (TPM) and with manual reading of the paired conventional Pap smear (PS) in terms of sensitivity for and positive predictive value (PPV) of high‐grade disease and productivity.
The study consisted of 11,416 routine PS and paired TP slides as well as 103 confirmed abnormal TP slides.
In terms of sensitivity for the detection of biopsy‐confirmed high‐grade disease, overall there was no statistically significant difference between TIS‐screened TP (TPI) and TPM (81.1% vs. 86.8%). For the routine cases, TPI was significantly more sensitive than PS (73.4% vs. 57.8%).
In terms of PPVs for the cytologic prediction of high‐grade disease, there was no statistically, significant difference among TPI, TPM, and PS (75.6%, 73.9%, and 84.6%). For cytologic reports of possible high‐grade disease, the PPVs were equivalent for TPI (45.0%) and TPM (37.0%) and there was no significant difference in PPVs between TPI and PS (61.3%). For TP slides, TIS screening showed a 27% productivity gain when compared with manual screening and a 54% productivity gain when compared with manual screening of PS slides.
Use of TIS showed productivity benefits when compared with TPM and both productivity and sensitivity benefits over use of PS. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2007;35:96–102. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/dc.20600 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68944797</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>68944797</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3570-2fb1a05d488f26c235d4a71ed48bb8b348be68c90a9191b6b1d9e261f3d5bfff3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1PAjEURRujEfxI_AVmVsbN4GvLtNMlQUUSogQxsmvamRZGZxhshyj_3iqoK1f35ebkJu8gdIahgwHIVZ51CDCAPdTGIHgMlIp91E55ksQYqGihI-9fAEAQzA5RC3NCIeGkjUgvahbOmFi5yuRR4wpVRrUNpYmmi2I5dmYVDSs1L5bz6HHjG1OdoAOrSm9Od3mMnm5vpv27ePQwGPZ7ozijCYeYWI0VJHk3TS1hGaHhVBybUGidahrCsDQToAQWWDONc2EIw5bmibbW0mN0sd1dufptbXwjq8JnpizV0tRrL1kqul0ueAAvt2Dmau-dsXLlikq5jcQgv_zIPJPffgJ6vttc6_DvH7gTEoB4C7wXpdn8OySv-z-DO74Iaj5-eeVeJeOUJ_L5fiBTNptORrOxnNBPOcp7aQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>68944797</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A three-armed trial of the ThinPrep Imaging System</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Journals</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Roberts, Jennifer M. ; Thurloe, Julia K. ; Bowditch, Ron C. ; Hyne, Suzanne G. ; Greenberg, Merle ; Clarke, Joanne M. ; Biro, Clare</creator><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Jennifer M. ; Thurloe, Julia K. ; Bowditch, Ron C. ; Hyne, Suzanne G. ; Greenberg, Merle ; Clarke, Joanne M. ; Biro, Clare</creatorcontrib><description>We compared the performance of the ThinPrep (TP) Imaging System (TIS) with manual reading of TP slides (TPM) and with manual reading of the paired conventional Pap smear (PS) in terms of sensitivity for and positive predictive value (PPV) of high‐grade disease and productivity.
The study consisted of 11,416 routine PS and paired TP slides as well as 103 confirmed abnormal TP slides.
In terms of sensitivity for the detection of biopsy‐confirmed high‐grade disease, overall there was no statistically significant difference between TIS‐screened TP (TPI) and TPM (81.1% vs. 86.8%). For the routine cases, TPI was significantly more sensitive than PS (73.4% vs. 57.8%).
In terms of PPVs for the cytologic prediction of high‐grade disease, there was no statistically, significant difference among TPI, TPM, and PS (75.6%, 73.9%, and 84.6%). For cytologic reports of possible high‐grade disease, the PPVs were equivalent for TPI (45.0%) and TPM (37.0%) and there was no significant difference in PPVs between TPI and PS (61.3%). For TP slides, TIS screening showed a 27% productivity gain when compared with manual screening and a 54% productivity gain when compared with manual screening of PS slides.
Use of TIS showed productivity benefits when compared with TPM and both productivity and sensitivity benefits over use of PS. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2007;35:96–102. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</description><identifier>ISSN: 8755-1039</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-0339</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/dc.20600</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17230572</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><subject>Autoanalysis ; cervical screening ; Female ; Humans ; Papanicolaou Test ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; ThinPrep imaging system ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Vaginal Smears - methods</subject><ispartof>Diagnostic cytopathology, 2007-02, Vol.35 (2), p.96-102</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3570-2fb1a05d488f26c235d4a71ed48bb8b348be68c90a9191b6b1d9e261f3d5bfff3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3570-2fb1a05d488f26c235d4a71ed48bb8b348be68c90a9191b6b1d9e261f3d5bfff3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fdc.20600$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fdc.20600$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17230572$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Jennifer M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thurloe, Julia K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bowditch, Ron C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hyne, Suzanne G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Greenberg, Merle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clarke, Joanne M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Biro, Clare</creatorcontrib><title>A three-armed trial of the ThinPrep Imaging System</title><title>Diagnostic cytopathology</title><addtitle>Diagn. Cytopathol</addtitle><description>We compared the performance of the ThinPrep (TP) Imaging System (TIS) with manual reading of TP slides (TPM) and with manual reading of the paired conventional Pap smear (PS) in terms of sensitivity for and positive predictive value (PPV) of high‐grade disease and productivity.
The study consisted of 11,416 routine PS and paired TP slides as well as 103 confirmed abnormal TP slides.
In terms of sensitivity for the detection of biopsy‐confirmed high‐grade disease, overall there was no statistically significant difference between TIS‐screened TP (TPI) and TPM (81.1% vs. 86.8%). For the routine cases, TPI was significantly more sensitive than PS (73.4% vs. 57.8%).
In terms of PPVs for the cytologic prediction of high‐grade disease, there was no statistically, significant difference among TPI, TPM, and PS (75.6%, 73.9%, and 84.6%). For cytologic reports of possible high‐grade disease, the PPVs were equivalent for TPI (45.0%) and TPM (37.0%) and there was no significant difference in PPVs between TPI and PS (61.3%). For TP slides, TIS screening showed a 27% productivity gain when compared with manual screening and a 54% productivity gain when compared with manual screening of PS slides.
Use of TIS showed productivity benefits when compared with TPM and both productivity and sensitivity benefits over use of PS. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2007;35:96–102. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</description><subject>Autoanalysis</subject><subject>cervical screening</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Papanicolaou Test</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>ThinPrep imaging system</subject><subject>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Vaginal Smears - methods</subject><issn>8755-1039</issn><issn>1097-0339</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1PAjEURRujEfxI_AVmVsbN4GvLtNMlQUUSogQxsmvamRZGZxhshyj_3iqoK1f35ebkJu8gdIahgwHIVZ51CDCAPdTGIHgMlIp91E55ksQYqGihI-9fAEAQzA5RC3NCIeGkjUgvahbOmFi5yuRR4wpVRrUNpYmmi2I5dmYVDSs1L5bz6HHjG1OdoAOrSm9Od3mMnm5vpv27ePQwGPZ7ozijCYeYWI0VJHk3TS1hGaHhVBybUGidahrCsDQToAQWWDONc2EIw5bmibbW0mN0sd1dufptbXwjq8JnpizV0tRrL1kqul0ueAAvt2Dmau-dsXLlikq5jcQgv_zIPJPffgJ6vttc6_DvH7gTEoB4C7wXpdn8OySv-z-DO74Iaj5-eeVeJeOUJ_L5fiBTNptORrOxnNBPOcp7aQ</recordid><startdate>200702</startdate><enddate>200702</enddate><creator>Roberts, Jennifer M.</creator><creator>Thurloe, Julia K.</creator><creator>Bowditch, Ron C.</creator><creator>Hyne, Suzanne G.</creator><creator>Greenberg, Merle</creator><creator>Clarke, Joanne M.</creator><creator>Biro, Clare</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200702</creationdate><title>A three-armed trial of the ThinPrep Imaging System</title><author>Roberts, Jennifer M. ; Thurloe, Julia K. ; Bowditch, Ron C. ; Hyne, Suzanne G. ; Greenberg, Merle ; Clarke, Joanne M. ; Biro, Clare</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3570-2fb1a05d488f26c235d4a71ed48bb8b348be68c90a9191b6b1d9e261f3d5bfff3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Autoanalysis</topic><topic>cervical screening</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Papanicolaou Test</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>ThinPrep imaging system</topic><topic>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Vaginal Smears - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Jennifer M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thurloe, Julia K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bowditch, Ron C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hyne, Suzanne G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Greenberg, Merle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clarke, Joanne M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Biro, Clare</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Diagnostic cytopathology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Roberts, Jennifer M.</au><au>Thurloe, Julia K.</au><au>Bowditch, Ron C.</au><au>Hyne, Suzanne G.</au><au>Greenberg, Merle</au><au>Clarke, Joanne M.</au><au>Biro, Clare</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A three-armed trial of the ThinPrep Imaging System</atitle><jtitle>Diagnostic cytopathology</jtitle><addtitle>Diagn. Cytopathol</addtitle><date>2007-02</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>96</spage><epage>102</epage><pages>96-102</pages><issn>8755-1039</issn><eissn>1097-0339</eissn><abstract>We compared the performance of the ThinPrep (TP) Imaging System (TIS) with manual reading of TP slides (TPM) and with manual reading of the paired conventional Pap smear (PS) in terms of sensitivity for and positive predictive value (PPV) of high‐grade disease and productivity.
The study consisted of 11,416 routine PS and paired TP slides as well as 103 confirmed abnormal TP slides.
In terms of sensitivity for the detection of biopsy‐confirmed high‐grade disease, overall there was no statistically significant difference between TIS‐screened TP (TPI) and TPM (81.1% vs. 86.8%). For the routine cases, TPI was significantly more sensitive than PS (73.4% vs. 57.8%).
In terms of PPVs for the cytologic prediction of high‐grade disease, there was no statistically, significant difference among TPI, TPM, and PS (75.6%, 73.9%, and 84.6%). For cytologic reports of possible high‐grade disease, the PPVs were equivalent for TPI (45.0%) and TPM (37.0%) and there was no significant difference in PPVs between TPI and PS (61.3%). For TP slides, TIS screening showed a 27% productivity gain when compared with manual screening and a 54% productivity gain when compared with manual screening of PS slides.
Use of TIS showed productivity benefits when compared with TPM and both productivity and sensitivity benefits over use of PS. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2007;35:96–102. © 2007 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</abstract><cop>Hoboken</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</pub><pmid>17230572</pmid><doi>10.1002/dc.20600</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 8755-1039 |
| ispartof | Diagnostic cytopathology, 2007-02, Vol.35 (2), p.96-102 |
| issn | 8755-1039 1097-0339 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68944797 |
| source | Wiley-Blackwell Journals; MEDLINE |
| subjects | Autoanalysis cervical screening Female Humans Papanicolaou Test Predictive Value of Tests Sensitivity and Specificity ThinPrep imaging system Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis Vaginal Smears - methods |
| title | A three-armed trial of the ThinPrep Imaging System |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T23%3A46%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20three-armed%20trial%20of%20the%20ThinPrep%20Imaging%20System&rft.jtitle=Diagnostic%20cytopathology&rft.au=Roberts,%20Jennifer%20M.&rft.date=2007-02&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=96&rft.epage=102&rft.pages=96-102&rft.issn=8755-1039&rft.eissn=1097-0339&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/dc.20600&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68944797%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=68944797&rft_id=info:pmid/17230572&rfr_iscdi=true |