Suppr超能文献

采样设备与宫颈涂片异常检测之间的关系:随机和半随机研究的荟萃分析

Relation between sampling device and detection of abnormality in cervical smears: a meta-analysis of randomised and quasi-randomised studies.

作者信息

Buntinx F, Brouwers M

机构信息

Department of General Practice, Universities of Louvain, Belgium.

出版信息

BMJ. 1996 Nov 23;313(7068):1285-90. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7068.1285.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To assess the diagnostic yield of different sampling devices used in cervical screening.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis of randomised and quasi-randomised studies.

SETTING

All randomised and quasi-randomised studies comparing the yield of cytological or histological abnormalities when two or more different sampling devices were used.

SUBJECTS

85,000 patients included in 29 studies reported in 28 papers.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pooled relative risk and 95% confidence interval of the yield of mild dysplasia or worse in smears recovered by each sampling method versus each other method with which it was compared; sensitivity or positive predictive value, or both, of cytological versus histological results in six studies from which sufficient data were available.

RESULTS

There were no substantial differences in the yield of cytological abnormalities between the Ayre spatula, the Cytobrush, and the cotton swab used alone. There were also no substantial differences in the yield of cytological abnormalities between the extended tip spatula, the Ayre spatula combined with the Cytobrush or cotton swab, or the Cervex brush. The Ayre spatula, Cytobruah, or cotton swab used alone generally performed significantly worse than the combinations, the extended tip spatula, or the Cervex brush. There were no substantial differences in sensitivity or positive predictive value between the sampling methods.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support the use of either the extended tip spatula, a combination of any spatula plus the Cytobrush or cotton swab, or the Cervex brush for cervical screening.

摘要

目的

评估宫颈筛查中使用的不同采样设备的诊断效率。

设计

对随机和半随机研究的荟萃分析。

背景

所有比较使用两种或更多不同采样设备时细胞学或组织学异常检出率的随机和半随机研究。

研究对象

28篇论文报道的29项研究中纳入的85000名患者。

主要观察指标

每种采样方法与其他与之比较的方法相比,涂片检查中轻度发育异常或更严重病变检出率的合并相对风险及95%置信区间;六项有足够数据的研究中细胞学与组织学结果的敏感性或阳性预测值,或两者。

结果

单独使用的艾yre刮匙、细胞刷和棉拭子在细胞学异常检出率上无显著差异。延长头刮匙、艾yre刮匙与细胞刷或棉拭子联合使用、或宫颈刷在细胞学异常检出率上也无显著差异。单独使用的艾yre刮匙、细胞刷或棉拭子通常比联合使用、延长头刮匙或宫颈刷的表现显著更差。采样方法在敏感性或阳性预测值上无显著差异。

结论

这些结果支持使用延长头刮匙、任何刮匙与细胞刷或棉拭子的组合、或宫颈刷进行宫颈筛查。

相似文献

5
Collection devices for obtaining cervical cytology samples.用于获取宫颈细胞学样本的采集装置。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000(3):CD001036. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001036.
8
A randomized comparison of the 3 Papanicolaou smear collection methods.三种巴氏涂片采集方法的随机对照比较。
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995 Nov;35(4):446-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828x.1995.tb02165.x.
9
Cervical cytology: a randomized comparison of four sampling methods.宫颈细胞学检查:四种采样方法的随机对照比较
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Jun;166(6 Pt 1):1772-7; discussion 1777-9. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(92)91568-u.

引用本文的文献

8
[Use of the endocervical brush for taking a cervical smear].[使用宫颈刷采集宫颈涂片]
Aten Primaria. 2003;32(3):187. doi: 10.1016/s0212-6567(03)79246-4.
10
Evaluation of diagnostic procedures.诊断程序的评估。
BMJ. 2002 Feb 23;324(7335):477-80. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7335.477.

本文引用的文献

2
A randomized trial of three methods of obtaining Papanicolaou smears.三种获取巴氏涂片方法的随机试验。
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1993 Feb;48(2):103-6. doi: 10.1016/0028-2243(93)90248-b.
7
Which cervical sampler? A comparison of four methods.哪种宫颈采样器?四种方法的比较。
Cytopathology. 1994 Aug;5(4):219-25. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2303.1994.tb00423.x.

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