ArticleCytoJournal2015
Etiologic factors related to unsatisfactory ThinPrep(®) cervical cytology: Evaluation and potential solutions to improve.
Article in CytoJournal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Breast Cyst Fluid Analysis Correlations with Speed of Sound Using Transmission Ultrasound.Academic radiology · 2019Article
- Can an inadequate cervical cytology sample in ThinPrep be converted to a satisfactory sample by processing it with a SurePath preparation?CytoJournal · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn cervical cytology, the unsatisfactory rates for ThinPrep (TP) are slightly higher compared to SurePath. We examined various causes and explored potential for resolution of this discrepancy. MATERIALS AND
methodsTotally, 19,422 cases were reviewed and 1000 unsatisfactory specimens were selected and analyzed. 531 specimens were available for wash protocol. Out of 114 unsatisfactory specimens associated with atrophic cellular changes (ACC), 48 were resubmitted by provider and reevaluated.
resultsLubricant and lubricant-like debris/contamination (LUBE) was the most common cause of unsatisfactory specimens (68%; 681/1000) followed by blood (7.5%); ACC only (without other interfering factors) (2.4%); inflammation (3.0%); and combinations thereof (1.9%). 11.5% showed scant cellularity without an identifiable cause. 3.3% were virtually acellular. Wash protocol improved cellularity in 48% (256/531) of cases. However, only 29% (73/256) of those were satisfactory (with more than 5000 cells). Quantitative reduction in LUBE after wash protocol varied with different morphological subtypes. Interpretation patterns on satisfactory specimens after wash protocol were comparable to the results on selected cohort of specimens during the same study period. Out of 114 ACC, wash protocol was performed on 68 ACC specimens leading to satisfactory TP in 24% (16/68). Totally, 48 cases reported as unsatisfactory with ACC, were resubmitted by the providers between 2 weeks and 2 years. 44 (92%) showed increased cellularity, out of which 52% (23/44) did not show ACC.
conclusionLUBE was the most common cause of unsatisfactory TP in addition to interference by blood and association with atrophic changes. Knowing the morphological spectrum of LUBE would help to identify it as the cause of unsatisfactory TP. Communicating the cause of unsatisfactory TP such as LUBE, ACC, and blood would hint the provider to take appropriate precaution during submission of the repeat specimen, leading to improved patient care.
Indexed as
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.