Premium
A comparison of the accuracy of liquid cytology versus conventional screening: a meta‐analysis of split‐sample studies
Author(s) -
Epstein David,
Labry Lima Antonio Olry,
Mochón Leticia García,
Balbino Jaime Espín,
Esquivias Javier
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of the royal statistical society: series a (statistics in society)
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.103
H-Index - 84
eISSN - 1467-985X
pISSN - 0964-1998
DOI - 10.1111/rssa.12005
Subject(s) - liquid based cytology , cytology , meta analysis , medicine , statistics , population , sensitivity (control systems) , sample size determination , mathematics , cervical cancer , cancer , pathology , environmental health , electronic engineering , engineering
Summary The aim of the paper is to compare the accuracy and effectiveness of liquid‐based versus 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.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom