• 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

相似文献

1
Comparison of PAP smear and liquid based cytology as a screening method for cervical carcinoma.巴氏涂片检查与液基细胞学检查作为宫颈癌筛查方法的比较。
Pak J Med Sci. 2022 Sep-Oct;38(7):1827-1831. doi: 10.12669/pjms.38.7.5742.
2
Should Liquid-Based Cytology (LBC) be Preferred than Conventional Pap Smear (CPS): A Comparative Analysis.液基细胞学检查(LBC)是否比传统巴氏涂片检查(CPS)更具优势:一项对比分析。
J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2024 Aug;74(4):311-318. doi: 10.1007/s13224-023-01828-x. Epub 2024 Feb 14.
3
A Comparison of Conventional Pap Smear and Liquid-Based Cytology for Cervical Cancer Screening.传统巴氏涂片与液基细胞学用于宫颈癌筛查的比较
Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2023 May 18;12(2):77-82. doi: 10.4103/gmit.gmit_118_22. eCollection 2023 Apr-Jun.
4
Is a liquid-based cytology more sensitive than a conventional Pap smear?液基细胞学检查比传统巴氏涂片检查更敏感吗?
Cytopathology. 2013 Aug;24(4):254-63. doi: 10.1111/cyt.12037. Epub 2013 Jan 20.
5
Can LBC Completely Replace Conventional Pap Smear in Developing Countries.在发展中国家,液基薄层细胞学检查(LBC)能否完全取代传统巴氏涂片检查?
J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2019 Feb;69(1):69-76. doi: 10.1007/s13224-018-1123-7. Epub 2018 May 18.
6
Liquid-Based Cytology in the Detection of Premalignant Lesions in Patients with "Atypia in Squamous Cells" in Conventional Cytology.液基细胞学在传统细胞学检查中“鳞状细胞非典型性”患者癌前病变检测中的应用
J Cytol. 2022 Oct-Dec;39(4):148-154. doi: 10.4103/joc.joc_22_22. Epub 2022 Oct 29.
7
Comparison of Liquid-Based Cytology and Conventional Papanicolaou Smear for Cervical Cancer Screening: An Experience From Pakistan.液基细胞学与传统巴氏涂片用于宫颈癌筛查的比较:来自巴基斯坦的经验
Cureus. 2020 Dec 26;12(12):e12293. doi: 10.7759/cureus.12293.
8
A comparative analysis of conventional and SurePath liquid-based cervicovaginal cytology: A study of 140 cases.传统涂片与SurePath液基宫颈阴道细胞学检查的对比分析:140例研究
J Cytol. 2016 Apr-Jun;33(2):80-4. doi: 10.4103/0970-9371.182525.
9
Liquid-based cytology versus conventional cytology for evaluation of cervical Pap smears: experience from the first 1000 split samples.液基细胞学与传统细胞学用于评估宫颈巴氏涂片:前1000份分流样本的经验
Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2015 Jan-Mar;58(1):17-21. doi: 10.4103/0377-4929.151157.
10
Comparison of conventional Pap smear and liquid-based cytology: A study of cervical cancer screening at a tertiary care center in Bihar.传统巴氏涂片与液基细胞学检查的比较:比哈尔邦一家三级医疗中心的宫颈癌筛查研究
Indian J Cancer. 2018 Jan-Mar;55(1):80-83. doi: 10.4103/ijc.IJC_352_17.

引用本文的文献

1
Identification of hub genes and potential molecular mechanisms of tumor immune microenvironment-related radiotherapy sensitivity in locally advanced cervical cancer.局部晚期宫颈癌中肿瘤免疫微环境相关放疗敏感性的枢纽基因鉴定及潜在分子机制
Reprod Sci. 2025 Jun 30. doi: 10.1007/s43032-025-01909-4.
2
A Comparative Study of Conventional Pap Smear and Liquid-Based Cytology.传统巴氏涂片与液基细胞学的比较研究
Health Sci Rep. 2025 Apr 23;8(4):e70768. doi: 10.1002/hsr2.70768. eCollection 2025 Apr.
3
Real-world effectiveness of cytology and HPV-based screening strategy in cervical cancer screening: A cross-sectional population-based study in Chengdu, China.细胞学和 HPV 为基础的筛查策略在宫颈癌筛查中的真实世界有效性:中国成都的一项基于人群的横断面研究。
PLoS One. 2024 Feb 29;19(2):e0299651. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299651. eCollection 2024.
4
The Efficiency of Cervical Pap and Comparison of Conventional Pap Smear and Liquid-Based Cytology: A Review.宫颈涂片检查的效率以及传统巴氏涂片与液基细胞学检查的比较:一篇综述
Cureus. 2023 Nov 6;15(11):e48343. doi: 10.7759/cureus.48343. eCollection 2023 Nov.
5
The Role of p16/Ki67 Dual Staining in Cervical Cancer Screening.p16/Ki67 双重染色在宫颈癌筛查中的作用
Curr Issues Mol Biol. 2023 Oct 19;45(10):8476-8491. doi: 10.3390/cimb45100534.
6
A Comparison of Conventional Pap Smear and Liquid-Based Cytology for Cervical Cancer Screening.传统巴氏涂片与液基细胞学用于宫颈癌筛查的比较
Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2023 May 18;12(2):77-82. doi: 10.4103/gmit.gmit_118_22. eCollection 2023 Apr-Jun.

本文引用的文献

1
Frequency of pap smear among doctors: A pilot study.医生进行巴氏涂片检查的频率:一项试点研究。
Pak J Med Sci. 2020 May-Jun;36(4):761-764. doi: 10.12669/pjms.36.4.1651.
2
Estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2018: a worldwide analysis.2018 年宫颈癌发病率和死亡率的估计:全球分析。
Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Feb;8(2):e191-e203. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30482-6. Epub 2019 Dec 4.
3
Comparative study between liquid-based cytology & conventional Pap smear for cytological follow up of treated patients of cancer cervix.液基细胞学与传统巴氏涂片在宫颈癌治疗后细胞学随访中的对比研究。
Indian J Med Res. 2018 Mar;147(3):263-267. doi: 10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_854_16.
4
Cervical Cancer Prevalence, Incidence and Mortality in Low and Middle Income Countries: A Systematic Review.低收入和中等收入国家的宫颈癌患病率、发病率及死亡率:一项系统评价
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2018 Feb 26;19(2):319-324. doi: 10.22034/APJCP.2018.19.2.319.
5
Cervical cancer in Pakistan: A review.巴基斯坦的宫颈癌:综述
J Pak Med Assoc. 2017 Jul;67(7):1074-1077.
6
A comparative analysis of conventional and SurePath liquid-based cervicovaginal cytology: A study of 140 cases.传统涂片与SurePath液基宫颈阴道细胞学检查的对比分析:140例研究
J Cytol. 2016 Apr-Jun;33(2):80-4. doi: 10.4103/0970-9371.182525.
7
Critical Analyses of the Introduction of Liquid-Based Cytology in a Public Health Service of the State of São Paulo, Brazil.对巴西圣保罗州公共卫生服务中引入液基细胞学的批判性分析。
Acta Cytol. 2015;59(3):273-7. doi: 10.1159/000435801. Epub 2015 Aug 13.
8
Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou cytology samples with liquid-based cervical cytology samples from women in Pernambuco, Brazil.巴西伯南布哥州女性传统巴氏细胞学样本与液基宫颈细胞学样本的比较。
Braz J Med Biol Res. 2015 Sep;48(9):831-8. doi: 10.1590/1414-431X20154252. Epub 2015 Jul 31.
9
Liquid-based cytology versus conventional cytology for evaluation of cervical Pap smears: experience from the first 1000 split samples.液基细胞学与传统细胞学用于评估宫颈巴氏涂片:前1000份分流样本的经验
Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2015 Jan-Mar;58(1):17-21. doi: 10.4103/0377-4929.151157.
10
Comparative study of the results from conventional cervico-vaginal oncotic cytology and liquid-based cytology.传统宫颈阴道涂片细胞学检查与液基细胞学检查结果的对比研究
Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2012 Oct-Dec;10(4):466-72. doi: 10.1590/s1679-45082012000400013.

巴氏涂片检查与液基细胞学检查作为宫颈癌筛查方法的比较。

Comparison of PAP smear and liquid based cytology as a screening method for cervical carcinoma.

作者信息

Khakwani Mehnaz, Parveen Rashida, Azhar Maryam

机构信息

Mehnaz Khakwani, FCPS. Department of Obstetrics and Gyne, Unit-1, Nishtar Medical University, Multan, Pakistan.

Rashida Parveen, FCPS. Department of Obstetrics and Gyne, Unit-1, Nishtar Medical University, Multan, Pakistan.

出版信息

Pak J Med Sci. 2022 Sep-Oct;38(7):1827-1831. doi: 10.12669/pjms.38.7.5742.

DOI:10.12669/pjms.38.7.5742
PMID:36246719
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9532633/
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To compare conventional PAP smear (CPS) and liquid-based cytology (LBC) for cervical carcinoma screening at a tertiary care hospital of South Punjab, Pakistan.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Nishtar Hospital, Multan, Pakistan from January 2021 to June 2021. We included a total of 265 women aged between 20 to 65 years who, presented with complaints related to cervical lesion and unhealthy cervix. The CPS and LBC methods were applied for screening of cervical carcinoma. Findings of both CPS and LBC were compared with histopathological findings to find out sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for both techniques.

RESULTS

In a total of 265 women, mean age was noted to be 45.4±6.8 years. White discharge per vagina was the commonest presenting complaint noted in 12 (46.8%) patients. Satisfactory smears were found in significantly more cases with LBC in comparison to CPS (p<0.001). Sensitivity CPS and LBC for the detection of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) were found to be 71.8% and 87.2% while for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL), sensitivity of CPS and LBC were 61.9% and 76.2% respectively. Specificity of CPS and LBC for the detection of LSIL was found to be 97.9% and 98.7% while for HSIL, specificity of CPS and LBC was 98.7% and 99.2% respectively.

CONCLUSION

In comparison to conventional CPS, LBC was found to be better in terms of adequacy of smear and identification of LSIL and HSIL.

摘要

目的

在巴基斯坦旁遮普省南部的一家三级护理医院比较传统巴氏涂片检查(CPS)和液基细胞学检查(LBC)用于宫颈癌筛查的效果。

方法

这项横断面研究于2021年1月至2021年6月在巴基斯坦木尔坦尼什塔尔医院妇产科进行。我们纳入了总共265名年龄在20至65岁之间、有宫颈病变和宫颈不健康相关主诉的女性。采用CPS和LBC方法进行宫颈癌筛查。将CPS和LBC的结果与组织病理学结果进行比较,以确定两种技术的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值。

结果

在总共265名女性中,平均年龄为45.4±6.8岁。12名(46.8%)患者中最常见的主诉是阴道白带增多。与CPS相比,LBC检查发现满意涂片的病例明显更多(p<0.001)。CPS和LBC检测低级别鳞状上皮内病变(LSIL)的敏感性分别为71.8%和87.2%,而检测高级别鳞状上皮内病变(HSIL)时,CPS和LBC的敏感性分别为61.9%和76.2%。CPS和LBC检测LSIL的特异性分别为97.9%和98.7%,而检测HSIL时,CPS和LBC的特异性分别为98.7%和99.2%。

结论

与传统CPS相比,LBC在涂片充分性以及LSIL和HSIL的识别方面表现更好。