English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Rapid (30-second) prescreening of cervicovaginal smears can be used to detect false-negative cases and determine the false-negative rate of primary screening, but the performance characteristics have not been evaluated fully. A test set of 242 cases including 80 originally false-negative cases were rapidly screened by 4 different cytotechnologists on 2 occasions. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility were good. Median specificity for each round of observations was 89% (range, 30%-96%). Median sensitivity for all true-positive cases was 78% (range, 63%-97%); for all false-negative cases it was 59% (range, 38%-89%). The relative sensitivity of rapid screening for true-positive and false-negative cases varied with the diagnosis. Rapid screening detected almost the same percentage of false-negative cases of atypical squamous cells of uncertain significance (ASCUS) as true-positive ASCUS cases (median ratio, 1.12; range, 0.72-1.52). The median ratio of false-negative to true-positive ASCUS cases was significantly different than the ratio for low-grade plus high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (0.68; range, 0.50-0.96). Although performance varies between individuals, in this test population the reproducibility, specificity, and sensitivity were good. Because it detects more false-negative cases at a lower cost per case than routine rescreening, rapid prescreening should be considered as an alternative to current quality control measures.

american journal of clinical pathology

Performance Characteristics of Rapid (30-Second) Prescreening: Implications for Calculating the False-Negative Rate and Comparison With Other Quality Assurance Techniques