ArticleBMJ open2012
Unsatisfactory rates vary between cervical cytology samples prepared using ThinPrep and SurePath platforms: a review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- Liquid-Based Cytology in Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Acta cytologica · 2026Pooled it
- 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests and Cancer Precursors.Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2020Guideline
- Comparison of 2 anal cytology protocols to predict high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia.Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2013Trial
- Evaluation of Anal Cancer Screening Among 18-to-34-Year-Old Men Who Have Sex With Men Living With HIV Over a 10-Year Period.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Optimization of RNAscope for HPV mRNA detection in liquid-based cervical cytology samples.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Comparison of smear cytology with liquid-based cytology in pancreatic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of clinical cases · 2021Article
- Clinical Performance of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Testing versus Cytology for Cervical Cancer Screening: Results of a Large Danish Implementation Study.Clinical epidemiology · 2020Article
- Screening history and FIGO-stages among Danish women with cervical cancer in 2012-2014: a register-based study.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Comparison of Unsatisfactory Samples from Conventional Smear versus Liquid-Based Cytology in Uterine Cervical Cancer Screening Test.Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2017Article
- Cervical cancer incidence after normal cytological sample in routine screening using SurePath, ThinPrep, and conventional cytology: population based study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2017Article
- Can an inadequate cervical cytology sample in ThinPrep be converted to a satisfactory sample by processing it with a SurePath preparation?CytoJournal · 2017Article
- A comparison of different human papillomavirus tests in PreservCyt versus SurePath in a referral population-PREDICTORS 4.Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology · 2016Article
- Etiologic factors related to unsatisfactory ThinPrep(®) cervical cytology: Evaluation and potential solutions to improve.CytoJournal · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare unsatisfactory rates between the two major liquid-based cytology (LBC) platforms, namely ThinPrep (Hologic) and SurePath (Becton Dickinson).
designThe authors performed both a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Inclusion criteria were English language, data presented on unsatisfactory rates for either ThinPrep or SurePath, utilising actual patient samples (ie, not laboratory manipulated samples) and no manipulation using acetic acid to increase the satisfactory rate. The authors searched PubMed for articles using the keywords 'SurePath' or 'ThinPrep' and 'unsatisfactory'. References of retrieved studies were searched for additional articles. Key researchers in the field were also contacted. PARTICIPANTS AND
interventionsEligible studies were reviewed for rates of unsatisfactory cervical cytology smears processed on either the ThinPrep or SurePath platforms (compared with a general linear model) or data on unsatisfactory rates for both platforms for the same laboratory and the same patient population (compared with a meta-analysis using a random effects model and pooled RR). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Unsatisfactory rate of cervical cytology smears.
resultsA total of 1 120 418 cervical cytology smears were reported in 14 different studies using the SurePath platform for an overall unsatisfactory rate (weighted average) of 0.3%. 28 studies reported on 1 148 755 smears prepared using the ThinPrep platform for an overall unsatisfactory rate (weighted average) of 1.3%. The general linear model did not show a difference between LBC platforms when other variables were controlled for; however, the power to detect a difference (0.087) was very low. The meta-analysis performed on four studies where both ThinPrep and SurePath results were reported from the same laboratory showed fewer unsatisfactory tests from the SurePath platform (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.77, p=0.004).
conclusionsMultiple factors affect LBC unsatisfactory rates. In a meta-analysis, cervical cytology samples prepared on the SurePath platform show significantly fewer unsatisfactory smears than those prepared on the ThinPrep platform.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.