Objective: To compare the variability of screening tests held at laboratories with the Unit for External Quality Control (UEQC), checking the frequency of cases that were discordant, false-positive, false-negative, unsatisfactory or that had a delay in clinical management and diagnostic agreement. Materials and Methods: The study analyzed 10,053 screening tests from January 2007 to December 2008, including all positive cases, all those that fall under unsatisfactory and at least 10% of negative screening tests. The magnitude of the agreement was analyzed using the kappa coefficient. Results: Out of the 10,053 cases analyzed, 7.59% were considered disagreeing, and it was estimated that 1.1% were false-negative. There was a delay in the clinical procedure regarding 2.44% cases. There were 2.82% of cases identified as false-positive and 1.24% as unsatisfactory. The diagnostic agreement was excellent (kappa = 0.81). The agreement of most laboratories concerning screening tests was classified as very good. The agreement of the sample adequacy was reasonable (kappa = 0.30) and the agreement regarding the representation of epithelia was considered excellent. Conclusion: Most laboratories showed very good agreement; however, it is worthy of note that to establish the standardization of diagnostic criteria, and enhance the accuracy of screening and improve the quality of cytopathology test results, it is necessary to perform external quality control.

Keywords:
Quality control, Cytology, Cervical screening
© 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel
2013
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.