A comparison of the accuracy of liquid cytology versus conventional screening: a meta‐analysis of split‐sample studies. (7th February 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Epstein, David; de, Antonio Olry; Mochón, Leticia García; Balbino, Jaime Espín; Esquivias, Javier
• Is Part Of: Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Volume 177:Number 1(2014:Jan.)
• Page Start: 153
• Page End: 168
• Publication Date: 2013-02-07
• Subjects: Social sciences -- Statistical methods -- Periodicals; Statistics -- Periodicals; 300.15195
• DOI: 10.1111/rssa.12005
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0964-1998

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="rssa12005-abs-0001"> <title>Summary</title> <p>The aim of the paper is to compare the accuracy and effectiveness of liquid‐based <italic>versus</italic> conventional cytology when used as part of a process of population screening to reduce the incidence of invasive cervical cancer. Data from split‐sample studies were analysed by using a hierarchical Bayesian multiparameter evidence synthesis model. Predictions of sensitivity and specificity were derived without having a procedure to detect the lesions. Results suggest that the specificity of both tests is high, such that less than 1% of normal samples are expected to be misdiagnosed. However, the sensitivity may be lower, with around 81% of lesions expected to be correctly diagnosed in smear tests and 88% in liquid‐based cytology.</p> </abstract>