Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

100% rapid (partial) rescreening for quality assurance

C Lemay1, A Meisels

  • 1Pathology Service, Centre hospitalier, l'Université Laval, Quebec, Canada.

Acta Cytologica
|February 13, 1999
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Comparison of the hybrid capture test and polymerase chain reaction in identifying women who have an atypical squamous cell of undetermined significance papanicolaou smear and need colposcopy.

Journal of lower genital tract disease·2015
Same author

Predictors of concomitant cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women with newly diagnosed atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance.

Journal of lower genital tract disease·2015
Same author

Cytologic detection in quebec city.

Canadian Medical Association journal·2010
Same author

Managing atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance in Papanicolaou smears.

The Journal of reproductive medicine·2001
Same author

Cytologic predictors of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women with an ASCUS Pap smear.

Acta cytologica·2000
Same author

Human papillomaviruses and vulvar vestibulitis.

Obstetrics and gynecology·2000
Same journal

The Development Path of Gynecological Cytology after Papanicolaou: from Bethesda to Artificial Intelligence and Personalized Medicine.

Acta cytologica·2026
Same journal

Cytological Features of CIC-rearranged Sarcoma. A Report of 5 New Cases and Review of the Literature.

Acta cytologica·2026
Same journal

Pericardial Fluid Metastatic Tumor Distribution and Fluid Volume Analysis, a 10-Year Institutional Experience.

Acta cytologica·2026
Same journal

The cytopathology of infectious disease: A review.

Acta cytologica·2026
Same journal

Investigation of a storage method for peritoneal and pleural effusion cytology specimens for long-term preservation of antigenicity in immunocytochemical staining.

Acta cytologica·2026
Same journal

Diagnostic Utility of endoscopic crush cytology in gastrointestinal malignancies.

Acta cytologica·2026
See all related articles

Rapid rescreening of all negative gynecologic smears is more efficient for quality assurance than random 10% rescreening. This method identifies more true false negatives with less review time.

Area of Science:

  • Cytopathology
  • Medical Diagnostics
  • Quality Assurance

Background:

  • Routine quality assurance in gynecologic cytology is crucial for accurate diagnoses.
  • Current methods include random rescreening of a percentage of negative smears.
  • Evaluating the efficiency of different rescreening techniques is essential for optimizing laboratory workflows.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the diagnostic efficiency of two quality assurance methods in gynecologic cytology.
  • The methods compared were 10% random rescreening versus rapid rescreening of all negative smears.

Main Methods:

  • A retrospective analysis of gynecologic smears diagnosed between November 1996 and December 1997 was performed.
  • Negative and benign smears were rescreened using the rapid, partial rescreening technique.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Results were compared to historical data from a 10% random rescreening method.

    • Main Results:

    • Rapid rescreening required reviewing fewer than eight cases to identify a true false negative, compared to 160 cases for 10% random rescreening.
    • The rapid rescreening method identified approximately four times more true false negatives than the 10% random review.
    • This indicates a significant improvement in sensitivity for detecting missed abnormalities.

    Conclusions:

    • Rapid rescreening of all negative gynecologic smears is a more efficient quality assurance method.
    • This technique enhances the detection of false negatives compared to the traditional 10% random rescreening approach.
    • Implementing rapid rescreening can improve the overall accuracy and effectiveness of gynecologic cytology quality control.