Renshaw Andrew A, Mody Dina R, Wang Edward, Wilbur David C, Colgan Terence J
Department of Pathology, Baptist Hospital of Miami, Miami, FL, USA.
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2005 Sep;129(9):1093-6. doi: 10.5858/2005-129-1093-MTSOPE.
The quality of gynecologic cytology slides within educational and proficiency testing programs may deteriorate during use. Participant evaluation of the acceptability of these slides subsequent to possible deterioration is not known.
To assess participants' evaluation of the acceptability of slides circulating within an educational gynecologic cytology glass slide program.
The College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology is a peer comparison and educational program that evaluates the ability of the participants to correctly classify gynecologic cytology preparations. The program uses both expert review and field validation to select slides for the graded portion of the program. Participants were asked to assess the acceptability of slides within the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology, and their responses were assessed with respect to type of slide preparation, validation status, and reference diagnosis. In addition, we compared the cytodiagnostic discordancy rates of slides that were deemed acceptable by participants with those that were deemed unacceptable.
Participant assessments were derived from pathologists and cytotechnologists from cytology laboratories of all types.
A total of 17,210 slide interpretations were reviewed, and 2.91% of the cases were labeled unacceptable by participants. For all slides, the percentage of cases called unacceptable varied from 1.65% for cases with a reference interpretation of herpes to 45% for cases with a reference interpretation of unsatisfactory. The percentage of slides deemed unacceptable was higher for validated slides than for educational slides (3.27% vs 2.55%, P = .006). The discordancy rate (to reference diagnosis series) for cases deemed unacceptable was significantly higher than the discordancy rate for cases deemed acceptable for both validated (10.39% vs 1.76%) and educational slides (21.72% vs 3.53%, P < .001).
Greater than 97% of all slides in the College of American Pathologists Interlaboratory Comparison Program in Cervicovaginal Cytology were judged acceptable by participants. Despite expert review and field validation, a small percentage of slides (almost 3%) in this program were deemed unacceptable by participants. These results support the use of participant evaluation of cases to continually improve the quality of cases in this program.
在教育和能力测试项目中，妇科细胞学玻片在使用过程中质量可能会下降。对于可能变质后的这些玻片，参与者对其可接受性的评估尚不清楚。
评估参与者对教育性妇科细胞学玻片项目中流通玻片可接受性的评估。
美国病理学家学会宫颈阴道细胞学实验室间比较项目是一个同行比较和教育项目，评估参与者正确分类妇科细胞学标本的能力。该项目使用专家评审和现场验证来选择用于项目分级部分的玻片。要求参与者评估美国病理学家学会宫颈阴道细胞学实验室间比较项目中玻片的可接受性，并根据玻片制备类型、验证状态和参考诊断对他们的回答进行评估。此外，我们比较了参与者认为可接受的玻片与不可接受的玻片的细胞诊断不一致率。
参与者评估来自各类细胞学实验室的病理学家和细胞技术人员。
共审查了17210份玻片解读，2.91%的病例被参与者标记为不可接受。对于所有玻片，被称为不可接受的病例百分比从参考解读为疱疹的病例的1.65%到参考解读为不满意的病例的45%不等。经过验证的玻片被认为不可接受的百分比高于教育玻片（3.27%对2.55%，P = 0.006）。对于经过验证的玻片和教育玻片，被认为不可接受的病例的不一致率（相对于参考诊断系列）显著高于被认为可接受的病例的不一致率（10.39%对1.76%）和（21.72%对3.53%，P < 0.001）。
在美国病理学家学会宫颈阴道细胞学实验室间比较项目中，超过97%的玻片被参与者判定为可接受。尽管经过了专家评审和现场验证，但该项目中仍有一小部分玻片（近3%）被参与者认为不可接受。这些结果支持利用参与者对病例的评估来持续提高该项目中病例的质量。
