Skip to main content

Technologic advances for evaluation of cervical cytology: is newer better?

Publication ,  Journal Article
Hartmann, KE; Nanda, K; Hall, S; Myers, E
Published in: Obstet Gynecol Surv
December 2001

Among those women who have cervical cancer and have been screened, 14% to 33% of the cases represent failure to detect abnormalities that existed at the time of screening. New technologies intended to improve detection of cytologic abnormalities include liquid-based, thin-layer cytology (ThinPrep, AutoCyte), computerized rescreening (PAPNET), and algorithm-based computer rescreening (AutoPap). This report combines evidence reviews conducted for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, in which we systematically identified articles on cervical neoplasia, cervical dysplasia, and screening published between January 1966 and March 2001. We note the challenges for improving screening methods, providing an overview of methods for collecting and evaluating cytologic samples, and examining the evidence about the diagnostic performance of new technologies for detecting cervical lesions. Using standard criteria for evaluation of the diagnostic tests, we determined that knowledge about the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of new technologies is meager. Only one study of liquid-based cytology used a reference standard of colposcopy, with histology as indicated, to assess participants with normal screening results. Lack of an adequate reference standard is the overwhelming reason that test characteristics cannot be properly assessed or compared. Most publications compare results of screening using the new technology with expert panel review of the cytologic specimen. In that case, the tests are not independent measures and do nothing to relate the screening test findings to the true status of the cervix, making determination of false-negatives, and thus sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, impossible. We did not identify any literature about health outcomes or cost effectiveness of using these tools in a system of screening. For the purposes of guiding decision making about choice of screening tools, the current evidence is inadequate to gauge whether new technologies are "better" than conventional cytology..

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats

Published In

Obstet Gynecol Surv

DOI

ISSN

0029-7828

Publication Date

December 2001

Volume

56

Issue

12

Start / End Page

765 / 774

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Vaginal Smears
  • Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
  • Uterine Cervical Dysplasia
  • Specimen Handling
  • Sensitivity and Specificity
  • Reference Values
  • Quality Control
  • Program Evaluation
  • Predictive Value of Tests
  • Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Hartmann, K. E., Nanda, K., Hall, S., & Myers, E. (2001). Technologic advances for evaluation of cervical cytology: is newer better? Obstet Gynecol Surv, 56(12), 765–774. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006254-200112000-00003
Hartmann, K. E., K. Nanda, S. Hall, and E. Myers. “Technologic advances for evaluation of cervical cytology: is newer better?Obstet Gynecol Surv 56, no. 12 (December 2001): 765–74. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006254-200112000-00003.
Hartmann KE, Nanda K, Hall S, Myers E. Technologic advances for evaluation of cervical cytology: is newer better? Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2001 Dec;56(12):765–74.
Hartmann, K. E., et al. “Technologic advances for evaluation of cervical cytology: is newer better?Obstet Gynecol Surv, vol. 56, no. 12, Dec. 2001, pp. 765–74. Pubmed, doi:10.1097/00006254-200112000-00003.
Hartmann KE, Nanda K, Hall S, Myers E. Technologic advances for evaluation of cervical cytology: is newer better? Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2001 Dec;56(12):765–774.

Published In

Obstet Gynecol Surv

DOI

ISSN

0029-7828

Publication Date

December 2001

Volume

56

Issue

12

Start / End Page

765 / 774

Location

United States

Related Subject Headings

  • Vaginal Smears
  • Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
  • Uterine Cervical Dysplasia
  • Specimen Handling
  • Sensitivity and Specificity
  • Reference Values
  • Quality Control
  • Program Evaluation
  • Predictive Value of Tests
  • Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine