• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

ThinPrep成像仪与传统细胞学检查的筛查时间比较。

A comparison of screening times between the ThinPrep Imager and conventional cytology.

作者信息

Boost Terese

机构信息

Cytology Department, Queensland Medical Laboratory, Queensland, Australia.

出版信息

Diagn Cytopathol. 2009 Sep;37(9):661-4. doi: 10.1002/dc.21069.

DOI:10.1002/dc.21069
PMID:19459203
Abstract

This small prospective study compared the time cytologists spend reviewing cervical cytology slides processed by the ThinPrep Imager (TPI) with screening times for conventional cytology slides (CS), to determine the effect, if any, of the TPI on productivity in our department. Some possible factors affecting TPI reading times, such as individual screener's experience with both specimen types, were also studied.We recorded the time taken to screen approximately 2,140 corresponding CS and TPI slides. The CS slides were screened by 22 cytologists, of whom 14 also read the TPI slides. The time taken to screen the slides at the conventional or review microscope was recorded, including any full reviews. Administrative duties including history checks and result entry were not included.Overall, the mean CS reading time was 5.6 minutes, (or 10.7 slides/hour) while the mean screening time for TPI was 2.9 minutes (20.6 slides/hour), a productivity increase of 92%. For the 14 cytologists who read both types of specimen, individual productivity increases ranged from 38.9 to 252%. Screener experience had little or no effect on TPI times, but slower CS readers were found to have greater increase in speed and productivity when using the TPI.This study has demonstrated a significant decrease in screening times for TPI when compared with CS (P = 0.001), resulting in significantly increased productivity (P = 0.001).

摘要

这项小型前瞻性研究比较了细胞学家审查由ThinPrep成像仪(TPI)处理的宫颈细胞学玻片所花费的时间与传统细胞学玻片(CS)的筛查时间,以确定TPI对我们科室工作效率的影响(若有影响)。还研究了一些可能影响TPI阅片时间的因素,如个体筛查员对两种标本类型的经验。我们记录了筛查约2140张相应CS和TPI玻片所花费的时间。CS玻片由22位细胞学家进行筛查,其中14位也阅读TPI玻片。记录了在传统显微镜或复查显微镜下筛查玻片所花费的时间,包括任何全面复查。不包括病史检查和结果录入等行政职责。总体而言,CS的平均阅片时间为5.6分钟(即每小时10.7张玻片),而TPI的平均筛查时间为2.9分钟(每小时20.6张玻片),工作效率提高了92%。对于阅读两种标本的14位细胞学家,个体工作效率提高幅度在38.9%至252%之间。筛查员的经验对TPI阅片时间影响很小或没有影响,但发现CS阅片速度较慢的人员在使用TPI时速度和工作效率提高幅度更大。这项研究表明,与CS相比,TPI的筛查时间显著缩短(P = 0.001),从而使工作效率显著提高(P = 0.001)。

相似文献

1
A comparison of screening times between the ThinPrep Imager and conventional cytology.ThinPrep成像仪与传统细胞学检查的筛查时间比较。
Diagn Cytopathol. 2009 Sep;37(9):661-4. doi: 10.1002/dc.21069.
2
Cervical cytology reading times: a comparison between ThinPrep Imager and conventional methods.宫颈细胞学阅片时间:ThinPrep成像仪与传统方法的比较
Diagn Cytopathol. 2007 Sep;35(9):550-4. doi: 10.1002/dc.20689.
3
A three-armed trial of the ThinPrep Imaging System.一项关于ThinPrep成像系统的三臂试验。
Diagn Cytopathol. 2007 Feb;35(2):96-102. doi: 10.1002/dc.20600.
4
Liquid-based cytology can improve efficiency of cervical smear readers: evidence from timing surveys in two NHS cytology laboratories.液基细胞学可提高宫颈涂片阅片者的效率:来自两个英国国民健康服务体系(NHS)细胞学实验室计时调查的证据。
Cytopathology. 2006 Apr;17(2):65-72. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2006.00304.x.
5
Increasing cytotechnologist workload above 100 slides per day using the ThinPrep imaging system leads to significant reductions in screening accuracy.使用 ThinPrep 成像系统使细胞技术专家的工作量每天超过 100 张幻灯片会导致筛检准确性显著降低。
Cancer Cytopathol. 2010 Apr 25;118(2):75-82. doi: 10.1002/cncy.20065.
6
Rapid, high throughput determination of cervical cytology specimen adequacy using a capillary-based cytometer.
Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2008 Mar;74(2):133-6. doi: 10.1002/cyto.b.20385.
7
Comparison of the sensitivity of conventional cytology and the ThinPrep Imaging System for 1,083 biopsy confirmed high-grade squamous lesions.传统细胞学与ThinPrep成像系统对1083例活检确诊的高级别鳞状病变的敏感性比较。
Diagn Cytopathol. 2010 May;38(5):318-26. doi: 10.1002/dc.21199.
8
Performance of the DNA-Citoliq liquid-based cytology system compared with conventional smears.将DNA-Citoliq液基细胞学系统与传统涂片进行比较的性能。
Cytopathology. 2006 Apr;17(2):86-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.2006.00279.x.
9
Whole, Turret and step methods of rapid rescreening: is there any difference in performance?整体、转塔和逐步快速重新筛选方法:性能上有差异吗?
Diagn Cytopathol. 2007 Jan;35(1):57-60. doi: 10.1002/dc.20405.
10
[The use of a computerised system in the reading of cytological cervicovaginals smears during programming of regional screening (one year of experience using the autopap system)].[在区域筛查规划期间使用计算机系统读取宫颈阴道细胞学涂片(使用自动巴氏涂片系统的一年经验)]
Pathologica. 2005 Apr;97(2):78-83.

引用本文的文献

1
ThinPrep® imaging system-assisted vs manual screening of urinary cytology slides in the detection of the "suspicious for high-grade urothelial carcinoma" category.ThinPrep® 成像系统辅助与手动筛查尿细胞学涂片在检测“高级别尿路上皮癌可疑”类别中的应用。
Cytopathology. 2022 Nov;33(6):716-724. doi: 10.1111/cyt.13173. Epub 2022 Sep 15.
2
Comparison of ThinPrep Integrated Imager-Assisted Screening versus Manual Screening of ThinPrep Liquid-Based Cytology Specimens.ThinPrep集成成像仪辅助筛查与ThinPrep液基细胞学标本手工筛查的比较。
Acta Cytol. 2020;64(5):486-491. doi: 10.1159/000507910. Epub 2020 Jun 12.