Fontaine Daniel, Narine Nadira, Naugler Christopher
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Calgary and Calgary Laboratory Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
BMJ Open. 2012 Apr 13;2(2):e000847. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000847. Print 2012.
To compare unsatisfactory rates between the two major liquid-based cytology (LBC) platforms, namely ThinPrep (Hologic) and SurePath (Becton Dickinson).
The authors performed both a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Inclusion criteria were English language, data presented on unsatisfactory rates for either ThinPrep or SurePath, utilising actual patient samples (ie, not laboratory manipulated samples) and no manipulation using acetic acid to increase the satisfactory rate. The authors searched PubMed for articles using the keywords 'SurePath' or 'ThinPrep' and 'unsatisfactory'. References of retrieved studies were searched for additional articles. Key researchers in the field were also contacted.
Eligible studies were reviewed for rates of unsatisfactory cervical cytology smears processed on either the ThinPrep or SurePath platforms (compared with a general linear model) or data on unsatisfactory rates for both platforms for the same laboratory and the same patient population (compared with a meta-analysis using a random effects model and pooled RR).
Unsatisfactory rate of cervical cytology smears.
A total of 1 120 418 cervical cytology smears were reported in 14 different studies using the SurePath platform for an overall unsatisfactory rate (weighted average) of 0.3%. 28 studies reported on 1 148 755 smears prepared using the ThinPrep platform for an overall unsatisfactory rate (weighted average) of 1.3%. The general linear model did not show a difference between LBC platforms when other variables were controlled for; however, the power to detect a difference (0.087) was very low. The meta-analysis performed on four studies where both ThinPrep and SurePath results were reported from the same laboratory showed fewer unsatisfactory tests from the SurePath platform (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.77, p=0.004).
Multiple factors affect LBC unsatisfactory rates. In a meta-analysis, cervical cytology samples prepared on the SurePath platform show significantly fewer unsatisfactory smears than those prepared on the ThinPrep platform.
比较两种主要的液基细胞学(LBC)平台,即ThinPrep(Hologic公司)和SurePath(贝克顿·迪金森公司)的不满意率。
作者进行了系统评价和荟萃分析。纳入标准为英文文献、呈现ThinPrep或SurePath不满意率的数据、使用实际患者样本(即非实验室处理样本)且未使用醋酸处理以提高满意率。作者在PubMed上使用关键词“SurePath”或“ThinPrep”以及“不满意”搜索文章。对检索到的研究的参考文献进行搜索以获取更多文章。还联系了该领域的关键研究人员。
对符合条件的研究进行审查,以获取在ThinPrep或SurePath平台上处理的宫颈细胞学涂片不满意率(与一般线性模型比较),或同一实验室和同一患者群体中两个平台的不满意率数据(与使用随机效应模型和合并RR的荟萃分析比较)。
宫颈细胞学涂片的不满意率。
14项不同研究使用SurePath平台报告了总共1120418例宫颈细胞学涂片,总体不满意率(加权平均值)为0.3%。28项研究报告了使用ThinPrep平台制备的1148755例涂片,总体不满意率(加权平均值)为1.3%。当控制其他变量时,一般线性模型未显示LBC平台之间存在差异;然而,检测差异的效能(0.087)非常低。对四项研究进行的荟萃分析显示,同一实验室报告了ThinPrep和SurePath结果,SurePath平台的不满意检测较少(RR 0.44,95%CI 0.25至0.77,p = 0.004)。
多种因素影响LBC不满意率。在一项荟萃分析中,SurePath平台制备的宫颈细胞学样本显示不满意涂片明显少于ThinPrep平台制备的样本。