Objectives: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) relies on systematic review (SR), meta-analysis (MA) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). These EBM tools are more commonly used in clinical medicine than in laboratory medicine. The extent of their use in cytopathology is not clear. The purpose of this study was to investigate the frequency of SR, MA and RCTs in cytopathology compared to other laboratory and clinical medicine specialties. Study Design: A literature-based search for SRs, MAs and RCTs in cytopathology was performed. Several electronic databases were searched without date restrictions. Four journals in cytopathology, pathology and clinical medicine were also searched over 6 years. Results: Gynecology cytology utilized SRs, MAs and RCTs more frequently (83%) than nongynecology and fine needle aspiration cytology. Cytopathology, histopathology and laboratory medicine journals showed comparable rates of 0.5–1.1% in papers reporting SRs, MAs and RCTs. Specialty medical journals showed a higher rate of 5.6% and general medical journals showed a much higher rate of 30%. Conclusions: SR, MA and RCTs are less frequently utilized in pathology than in clinical medicine. Cytopathologists should be more aware of the benefits of SR and MA in resolving uncertainties and improving the clinical applicability of level III diagnostic studies.

Keywords:
Systematic review, Meta-analysis, Randomized controlled trial, Evidence-based medicine
1.
Sackett D, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, et al: Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ 1996;312:71–72.
2.
Higgins JPT, Green S (eds): Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.6 (updated September 2006); in The Cochrane Library (issue 4). Chichester, Wiley, 2006.
3.
Cochrane Collaboration. http://www.cochrane.org. (accessed September 2010).
4.
McQueen MJ: Overview of evidence-based medicine: challenges for evidence-based laboratory medicine. Clin Chem 2001;47:1536–1546.
5.
Oosterhuis WP, Bruns DE, Watine J, Sandberg S, Horvath AR: Evidence-based guidelines in laboratory medicine: principles and methods. Clin Chem 2004;50:806–818.
6.
Marchevsky AM, Wick MR: Evidence levels for publications in pathology and laboratory medicine. Am J Clin Pathol 2010;133:366–367.
7.
Glass GV: Primary, secondary and meta-analysis research. Educ Res 1976;5:3–8.
8.
Saville M, Mitchell H: Randomized controlled trial evaluating rapid pre-screen of cervical cytology specimens. Cytopathology 2004;15:12–17.
9.
Fiander A: Trials update in Wales. Cytopathology 2007;18:304.
10.
Arbyn M: HPV trials update. Cytopathology 2007;18:3.
11.
Strander B, Andersson-Ellstrom A, Milsom I, et al: Liquid-based cytology versus conventional Papanicolaou smear in an organized screening program: a prospective randomized study. Cancer 2007;111:285–291.
12.
Jesdapararknl S, Tangjitgamol S, Nguansangiam S, et al: Liqui-Prep® versus conventional Papanicolaou smear to detect cervical cells abnormality by split-sample technique: a randomized double-blind control trial. Diagn Cytopathol 2011;39:22–27.
13.
Obwegeser JH, Brack S: Does liquid-based technology really improve detection of cervical neoplasia? A prospective, randomized trial comparing the ThinPrep Pap Test with the conventional Pap Test, including follow-up of HSIL cases. Acta Cytol 2001;45:709–714.
14.
Maccallini V, Angeloni C, Caraceni D, et al: Comparison of the conventional cervical smear and liquid-based cytology: results of a controlled prospective study in the Abruzzo Region of Italy. Acta Cytol 2008;52:568–574.
15.
Confortini M, Bondi A, Cariaggi MP, et al: Interlaboratory reproducibility of liquid-based equivocal cervical cytology within a randomized controlled trial framework. Diagn Cytopathol 2007;35:541–544.
16.
Ronco G, Giorgi-Rossi P, Carozzi F, et al: Results at recruitment from a randomized controlled trial comparing human papillomavirus testing alone with conventional cytology as the primary cervical cancer screening test. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008;100:492–501.
17.
Ronco G, Segnan N, Giorgi-Rossi P, et al: Human papillomavirus testing and liquid-based cytology: results at recruitment from the new technologies for cervical cancer randomized controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:765–774.
18.
Dey P, Collins S, Desai M, et al: Adequacy of cervical cytology sampling with the Cervex brush and the Aylesbury spatula: a population-based randomised controlled trial. BMJ 1996;313:721–723.
19.
Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Grefte JM, et al: Comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology for detection of cervical cancer precursors: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009;302:1757–1764.
20.
Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer PJ, et al: Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:167–177.
21.
Ogilvie GS, van Niekerk DJ, Krajden M, et al: A randomized controlled trial of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical cancer screening: trial design and preliminary results (HPV FOCAL Trial). BMC Cancer 2010;10:111.
22.
Kitchener HC, Almonte M, Gilham C, et al: ARTISTIC: a randomised trial of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in primary cervical screening. Health Technol Assess 2009;13:1–150.
23.
Kitchener HC, Almonte M, Thomson C, et al: HPV testing in combination with liquid-based cytology in primary cervical screening (ARTISTIC): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:672–682.
24.
Jesdapatarakul S, Tangjitgamol S, Nguansangiam S, Manusirivithaya S: Liqui-Prep® versus conventional Papanicolaou smear to detect cervical cells abnormality by split-sample technique: a randomized double-blind controlled trial. Diagn Cytopathol 2011;39:22–27.
25.
Arbyn M, Schenck U, Ellison E, et al: Metaanalysis of the accuracy of rapid prescreening relative to full screening of pap smears. Cancer 2003;99:9–16.
26.
Arbyn M, Sasieni P, Meijer CJ, et al: Clinical applications of HPV testing: a summary of meta-analyses. Vaccine 2006;24(suppl 3):78–89.
27.
Arbyn M, Buntinx F, Van Ranst M, et al: Virologic versus cytologic triage of women with equivocal Pap smears: a meta-analysis of the accuracy to detect high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:280–293.
28.
Buntinx F, Brouwers M: Relation between sampling device and detection of abnormality in cervical smears: a meta-analysis of randomized and quasi-randomized studies. BMJ 1996;313:1285–1290.
29.
Arbyn M, Schenck U: Detection of false negative Pap smears by rapid reviewing: a metaanlaysis. Acta Cytol 2000;44:949–957.
30.
Ogilvie GS, Patrick DM, Schulzer M, et al: Diagnostic accuracy of self-collected vaginal specimens for human papillomavirus compared to clinician collected human papillomavirus specimens: a meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect 2005;81:207–212.
31.
Martin-Hirsch P, Lilford R, et al: Efficacy of cervical-smear collection devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 1999;354:1763–1770.
32.
Strander B, Andersson-Ellstrom A, Milsom I, et al: Liquid-based cytology versus conventional Papanicolaou smear in an organized screening program: a prospective randomized study. Cancer 2007;111:285–291.
33.
Martin-Hirsch P, Jarvis G, Kitchener H, et al: Collection devices for obtaining cervical cytology samples. Update. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000:CD001036.
34.
Confortini M, Bergeron C, Desai M, et al: Accuracy of liquid-based cytology. Cancer 2010;118:203–208.
35.
Whynes DK, Woolley C, Philips Z, et al: Management of low-grade cervical abnormalities detected at screening: which method do women prefer? Cytopathology 2008;19:355–362.
36.
Cronje HS, Divall P, Bam RH, et al: Effects of dilute acetic acid on the cervical smear. Acta Cytol 1997;41:1091–1094.
37.
Thornton AJ, Cotton SC, Sharp L, et al: Default from cytological surveillance of low-grade smears: levels of default and characteristics of defaulters in the trial of management of borderline and other low-grade abnormal smears (TOMBOLA). Cytopathology 2006;17:26.
38.
Melnikow J, Nuovo J, Willan AR, et al: Natural history of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92:727–735.
39.
Cantor SB, Atkinson EN, Cardenas-Turanzas M, et al: Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a meta-analysis. Acta Cytol 2005;49:405–415.
40.
Karnon J, Peters J, Platt J, et al: Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: an updated rapid and systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess 2004;8:71–78.
41.
Abulafia O, Sherer DM: Automated cervical cytology: meta-analyses of the performance of the AutoPap 300 QC System. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1999;54:469–476.
42.
Fahey MT, Irwig L, Macaskill P: Meta-analysis of Pap test accuracy. Am J Epidemiol 1995;141:680–689.
43.
Abulafia O, Sherer DM: Automated cervical cytology: meta-analyses of the performance of the PAPNET System. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1999;54:253–264.
44.
Doria-Rose VP, Marcus PM, Szabo E, et al: Randomized controlled trials of the efficacy of lung cancer screening by sputum cytology revisited: a combined mortality analysis from the Johns Hopkins Lung Project and the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Lung Study. Cancer 2009;115:5007–5017.
45.
Bakis S, Irwig L, Wood G, Wong D: Exfoliative cytology as a diagnostic test for basal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis. Br J Dermatol 2004;150:829–836.
46.
Van der Waaij LA, Van Dullemen HM, Porte RJ: Cyst fluid analysis in the differential diagnosis of pancreatic cystic lesions: a pooled analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;62:383–389.
47.
Brugge WR: Should all pancreatic cystic lesions be resected? Cyst-fluid analysis in the differential diagnosis of pancreatic cystic lesions: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;62:390–391.
48.
Kujan O, Glenny AM, Oliver RJ, et al: Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer. Update. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;3:CD004150.
49.
Colasacco C, Mount S, Leiman G: Documentation of immunocytochemistry controls in the cytopathologic literature: a meta-analysis of 100 journal articles. Diagn Cytopathol 2011;39:245–250.
50.
Akcil M, Karaagaoglu E, Demirhan B: Diagnostic accuracy of fine-needle aspiration cytology of palpable breast masses: an SROC curve with fixed and random effect linear meta-regression models. Diagn Cytopathol 2008;36:303–310.
51.
Peng Y, Wang HH: A meta-analysis of comparing fine-needle aspiration and frozen section for evaluating thyroid nodules. Diagn Cytopathol 2008;36:916–920.
52.
Polyzos SA, Patsiaoura K, Zachou K: Histological alterations following thyroid fine needle biopsy: a systematic review. Diagn Cytopathol 2009;37:455–465.
53.
Gerke H, Rizk MK, Vanderheyden AD, et al: Randomized study comparing endoscopic ultrasound-guided Trucut biopsy and fine needle aspiration with high suction. Cytopathology 2010;21:44–51.
54.
The Periodic Health Examination: Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. CMAJ 1979;121:1193–1254.
55.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRSIMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:264–269.
56.
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al: Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ 2003;326:41–44.
57.
Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, et al: The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:25.
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
2012
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.