Objective: The aim of this work was to evaluate 100% rapid review (100% RR) as a useful tool to detect false negative (FN) results. Study Design: A sample of 8,677 swabs was investigated; the unsatisfactory and negative results were referred to 100% RR, concordant results were taken as the final diagnosis, while the discordant results were debated in a consensus meeting to reach a conclusion. The positive results were examined by 2 cytologists. The data were entered into SAS statistical software, and the agreement of the 100% RR results with the final diagnosis was tested with the weighted kappa statistic. Results: There was a significant increase in unsatisfactory results from 348 to 1,927, and of positive results from 174 to 349. On the other hand, there was a substantial decrease in negative results from 8,155 to 6,401. Assessing the relative risk of FN results in smears that were not referred to quality control (100% RR) revealed the following results: atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US), 2.93; low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL), 2.72; high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion/atypical squamous cells – cannot exclude HSIL (HSIL/ASC-H), 2.25. Evaluating by age group, a higher risk for LSIL (4.90) and ASC-US (3.85) was observed in patients aged under 25 years, whereas patients between 25 and 64 years and those over 64 years presented a higher risk for HSIL and ASC-H: 2.46 and 2.75, respectively. Conclusion: 100% RR is an effective screening tool for FN results in countries where molecular tests for DNA-HPV and prophylactic vaccines are not available in cervical cancer screening programs.

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.