Screening Errors

Author(s):  
Jonathan Howard
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostics ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 210
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Asaturova ◽  
Darya Dobrovolskaya ◽  
Alina Magnaeva ◽  
Anna Tregubova ◽  
Guldana Bayramova ◽  
...  

Recent evidence suggests that a cytology–histology correlation (CHC) with discrepancy detection can both evaluate errors and improve the sensitivity and specificity of the cytologic method. We aimed to analyze the errors in cytologic–histologic discrepancies according to the CHC protocol guideline of the American Society of Cytopathology (2017). This retrospective study included 273 patients seen at the National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology (Moscow, Russia) between January 2019 and September 2021. The patients’ mean age was 34 ± 8.1 years. The cytology–histology agreement was noted in 158 cases (57.9%). Major discrepancies were found in 21 cases (7.6%), while minor discrepancies were noted in 93 cases (34.1%). The reason for 13 (4.8%) discrepancies was a colposcopy sampling error and, in 46 (16.8%) cases, the reason was a Papanicolaou (PAP) test sampling error. The discrepancy between primary and reviewed cytology was due interpretive errors in 13 (4.8%) cases and screening errors in 42 (15.4%) cases. We demonstrated that the ASC guidelines facilitate cervical CHC. A uniform application of these guidelines would standardize cervical CHCs internationally, provide a scope for the inter-laboratory comparison of data, and enhance self-learning and peer learning.


1997 ◽  
Vol 83 (6) ◽  
pp. 880-883 ◽  
Author(s):  
Massimo Confortini ◽  
Stefano Ciatto ◽  
Lucia Bonardi ◽  
Paolo Bulgaresi ◽  
Maria Paola Cariaggi ◽  
...  

Aims and background To review false-negative or underreported (reactive changes, squamous or glandular atypia) smears performed in women developing histologically proven CIN2 or more severe lesions within 24 months and evaluate error causes. The study setting was the Florence District cervical cancer population-based screening: about 60,000 women age 25–60 years screened per year. Methods 118 false-negative or underreported cases were identified at screening files-cancer Registry matching, and the original smears were reviewed by six independent readers to judge smear adequacy and error type. Results Sampling errors (reported as inadequate, negative or less severe than CIN1 at review) accounted for 74% and screening/interpretation errors (reported as CIN1 or more severe at review) accounted for 26% of studied cases. Screening/interpretation errors were more likely ascribed to misinterpretation and underreporting than to mis-perception of cellular abnormalities. Conclusions Quality control should above all address the problem of sampling adequacy. Due to the rarity of misperceived abnormalities (true screening errors), manual or automated rescreening of negative smears would not be an effective procedure for quality control.


2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 994258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ehsan Sharifi ◽  
Mohammad Ali Sobhanallahi ◽  
Abolfazl Mirzazadeh ◽  
Sonia Shabani

2006 ◽  
Vol 50 (5) ◽  
pp. 492-498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather Mitchell ◽  
Jane Hocking ◽  
Marion Saville

2001 ◽  
Vol 13 (S1) ◽  
pp. 143-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerry Hill ◽  
Ian MacNeill ◽  
Richard Aylesworth ◽  
Ian McDowell ◽  
William Forbes ◽  
...  

The Canadian Study of Health and Aging produced an estimate of the incidence of dementia among elderly Canadians by following up, after 5 years, the undemented found in an initial prevalence survey. Initial and follow-up estimates could be biased by false-negative error in the screening tool used for subjects living in the community, and by erroneous classification of subjects who died in the interim. Here, we use a deterministic model to quantify those possible biases. We conclude that, using the estimates of the errors from control samples, the incidence among community subjects would be overestimated by 15%, and the incidence among the institutional subjects would be underestimated by 37%. The overall incidence would be underestimated by 14%. Most of the bias can be attributed to inaccuracies in the classification of deaths.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document