Suppr超能文献

宫颈细胞学检查:四种采样方法的随机对照比较

Cervical cytology: a randomized comparison of four sampling methods.

作者信息

McCord M L, Stovall T G, Meric J L, Summitt R L, Coleman S A

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Tennessee, Memphis 38103.

出版信息

Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Jun;166(6 Pt 1):1772-7; discussion 1777-9. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(92)91568-u.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare smear quality and endocervical cell recovery of four cervical smear sampling devices.

STUDY DESIGN

Two thousand fifteen patients undergoing routine cervical smears at the University of Tennessee Obstetrics and Gynecology clinics were randomly assigned to a cotton swab-spatula, Cytobrush-spatula, Cervex-Brush, or Bayne Pap Brush. The cytopathology laboratory, blind to method, used specific criteria to grade smears as being optimal, adequate, marginal, or inadequate. Statistical analysis was by the chi 2 and analysis of variance tests.

RESULTS

No statistical differences occurred among the groups for nonpregnant patients. For pregnant patients smear quality was improved with both Cytobrush-spatula and Bayne Pap Brush versus cotton swab-spatula (p = 0.0301 and 0.0004, respectively); cotton swab-spatula had fewer endocervical cells than the Cytobrush-spatula (p = 0.0001), Cervex-Brush (p = 0.0288), and Bayne Pap Brush (p = 0.0081).

CONCLUSIONS

The cotton swab-spatula and Cytobrush-spatula appear to be the most effective screening methods for nonpregnant and pregnant patients, respectively.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较四种宫颈涂片采样装置的涂片质量和宫颈管细胞回收率。

研究设计

在田纳西大学妇产科诊所接受常规宫颈涂片检查的2015名患者被随机分配使用棉拭子-刮板、细胞刷-刮板、Cervex刷或贝恩巴氏刷。细胞病理学实验室在不知方法的情况下,使用特定标准将涂片评为最佳、 adequate、边缘或不充分。统计分析采用卡方检验和方差分析。

结果

非妊娠患者组间无统计学差异。对于妊娠患者,细胞刷-刮板和贝恩巴氏刷的涂片质量均优于棉拭子-刮板(分别为p = 0.0301和0.0004);棉拭子-刮板的宫颈管细胞比细胞刷-刮板(p = 0.0001)、Cervex刷(p = 0.0288)和贝恩巴氏刷(p = 0.0081)少。

结论

棉拭子-刮板和细胞刷-刮板似乎分别是针对非妊娠和妊娠患者最有效的筛查方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验