Rapid screening: a comparative study

Rapid screening: a comparative study Although rapid screening of negative and inadequate cervical smears is a quality assurance requirement for all UK laboratories, there has been little attempt to standardize the method and laboratories make use of a number of different techniques and times. The aim of this study was to assess the sensitivity of these various techniques by measuring their ability to pick out known false‐negative smears. Completed questionnaires from 123 laboratories across England revealed that 52% of laboratories use a ‘step’ technique, 19% use ‘turret’, 15% use random paths and 34% attempt to rescreen the whole slide quickly. Twenty‐two percent of laboratories use a mixture of techniques. Timings are also variable, with the majority of laboratories allowing screeners to review slides at a pace decided by themselves but usually between 1 and 2 min. The study involved 120 participants who performed a total of 24 000 rapid screens. The results showed that, of the 90 abnormal slides used in the study, 62 cases (69%) were identified as abnormal or needing review by more than 50% of participants. Overall rapid screening picked out 58% of high‐grade squamous abnormalities, 59% of low‐grade abnormalities and 72% of glandular lesions. Step screening performed best, followed by whole slide/random and then turret. One minute was the optimum time and there was a significant fall in performance once individuals attempted to rescreen large numbers (>50). The most significant finding was the marked variation in the performance of individuals using the same slide sets.