Catalogo Articoli (Spogli Riviste)

OPAC HELP

Titolo:
The effect of nonscreening smears on screening smear results: a statistical analysis with its implications for the NHS cervical screening programme
Autore:
Rice, S; Slater, DN; Hewer, EM;
Indirizzi:
No Gen Hosp NHS Trust, Trent Reg NHSCSP Qual Assurance Reference Ctr, Sheffield, S Yorkshire, England No Gen Hosp NHS Trust Sheffield S Yorkshire England S Yorkshire, England
Titolo Testata:
CYTOPATHOLOGY
fascicolo: 3, volume: 11, anno: 2000,
pagine: 158 - 165
SICI:
0956-5507(200006)11:3<158:TEONSO>2.0.ZU;2-6
Fonte:
ISI
Lingua:
ENG
Keywords:
screening smears; nonscreening smears; laboratory workloads;
Tipo documento:
Article
Natura:
Periodico
Settore Disciplinare:
Clinical Medicine
Citazioni:
6
Recensione:
Indirizzi per estratti:
Indirizzo: Rice, S No Gen Hosp, Trent Reg NHSCSP Qual Assurance Reference Ctr, Herries Rd, Sheffield S5 7AU, S Yorkshire, England No Gen Hosp Herries Rd Sheffield S Yorkshire England S5 7AU ngland
Citazione:
S. Rice et al., "The effect of nonscreening smears on screening smear results: a statistical analysis with its implications for the NHS cervical screening programme", CYTOPATHOLO, 11(3), 2000, pp. 158-165

Abstract

This is a statistical analysis of individual NHS Cervical Screening Programme laboratories screening smear 'pick-up' rates (defined here as percentage low grade and percentage high grade of total adequate smears for ages 20-64 years derived from general practitioners and community clinics) in relation to their nonscreening smear workload proportion (here defined as percentage nonscreening smears of total laboratory workload from all sources for all ages). This was achieved by the use of three one way ANOVA models in order to receive a complete overview of the results. The models were applied to the following: (1) Laboratories with a total workload of less than 15 000 general practitioner (CP) and community clinic smears; (2) laboratories with a total workload of greater than 15 000 CP and community smears and; (3) all laboratories (i.e. a combination of 1 and 2). The 'test' groups within each of these models comprised three subgroups based on the percentage oflaboratory workload that consisted of smears from a nonscreening source. This figure ranged from 2.8% to 82.6%. The subgroups were divided so as to contain approximately the same number of laboratories in each one (172 laboratories in total, 42 with workload < 15 000 and 130 with > 15 000). The results show that laboratories high and low grade pick-up rates have a positively correlated but variable relationship with the proportion of their workload that consists of nonscreening smears. The results show significance overall at the 5% level for high grade and the 10% level for low grade (high grade at P = 0.045 and low grade at P = 0.071). Significance for laboratories viewing less than 15000 screening smears at the 1% level thigh grade P = 0.006 and low grade P = 0.005, They show no significance, however, for laboratories viewing more than 15 000 screening smears (high grade P = 0.457 and low grade P = 0.622). There is an intriguing possibility that a greater exposure to abnormal smears results in a greater tendency to detect them. The current data provides no evidence to support the NHS Executive's use of 15 000 as a designated figure when quality monitoring and service provision becomes a specific issue. The closure or amalgamation of laboratories with workloads less than this would appear to have no scientific evidence base.

ASDD Area Sistemi Dipartimentali e Documentali, Università di Bologna, Catalogo delle riviste ed altri periodici
Documento generato il 11/07/20 alle ore 07:39:44