Papers

Relation between sampling device and detection of abnormality in cervical smears: a meta-analysis of randomised and quasi-randomised studies

^a Departments of General Practice, Universities of Louvain (Belgium) and Maastricht (Netherlands), ^b Department of General Practice, University of Maastricht (Netherlands)

Correspondence to: Professor Frank Buntinx, Department of General Practice, Universiteit Maastricht, PO Box 616-6200 MD Maastricht, Netherlands.

Abstract

Objective: To assess the diagnostic yield of different sampling devices used in cervical screening.
Design: Meta-analysis of randomised and quasi-randomised studies.
Setting: All randomised and quasi-randomised studies comparing the yield of cytological or histological abnormalities when two or more different sampling devices were used.
Subjects: 85 000 patients included in 29 studies reported in 28 papers.
Main outcome measures: Pooled relative risk and 95% confidence interval of the yield of mild dysplasia or worse in smears recovered by each sampling method versus each other method with which it was compared; sensitivity or positive predictive value, or both, of cytological versus histological results in six studies from which sufficient data were available.
Results: There were no substantial differences in the yield of cytological abnormalities between the Ayre spatula, the Cytobrush, and the cotton swab used alone. There were also no substantial differences in the yield of cytological abnormalities between the extended tip spatula, the Ayre spatula combined with the Cytobrush or cotton swab, or the Cervex brush. The Ayre spatula, Cytobrush, or cotton swab used alone generally performed significantly worse than the combinations, the extended tip spatula, or the Cervex brush. There were no substantial differences in sensitivity or positive predictive value between the sampling methods.
Conclusions: These results support the use of either the extended tip spatula, a combination of any spatula plus the Cytobrush or cotton swab, or the Cervex brush for cervical screening.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Knottnerus, J A., van Weel, C., Muris, J. W M (2002). Evidence base of clinical diagnosis: Evaluation of diagnostic procedures. BMJ 324: 477-480 [Full text]  
• Nanda, K., McCrory, D. C., Myers, E. R., Bastian, L. A., Hasselblad, V., Hickey, J. D., Matchar, D. B. (2000). Accuracy of the Papanicolaou Test in Screening for and Follow-up of Cervical Cytologic Abnormalities: A Systematic Review. ANN INTERN MED 132: 810-819 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Curtis, P., Mintzer, M., Morrell, D., Resnick, J. C., Hendrix, S., Qaqish, B. F. (1999). Characteristics and Quality of Papanicolaou Smears Obtained by Primary Care Clinicians Using a Single Commercial Laboratory. Arch Fam Med 8: 407-413 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Melnikow, J., Nuovo, J. (1999). Reducing Mortality Due to Cervical Cancer: PAPNET Fails the Test. Arch Fam Med 8: 56-57 [Full text]  
• Sasieni, P. (1996). Cervical sampling devices. BMJ 313: 1275-1276 [Full text]