Abstract
To investigate the use of rapid re-screening as a quality control method for previously screened cervical slides; to compare this method with 10% random re-screening and clinically indicated double screening. Between June 1990 and December 1994, 117,890 negative smears were subjected to rapid re-screening. This study shows that rapid re-screening detects far greater numbers of false negative cases when compared with both 10% random re-screening and clinically indicated double screening, with no additional demand on human resources. The technique also identifies variation in the performance of screening personnel as an additional benefit. Rapid re-screening is an effective method of quality control. Although less sensitive, rapid re-screening should replace 10% random re-screening and selected re-screening as greater numbers of false negative results are detected while consuming less resources.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
