Screening error rates have been measured in various ways. The false-negative fraction is advantageous because it is valid for comparisons between laboratories, which is crucial if standards for error rates are to be developed. False-negative fractions reported or calculated from data in the literature range from approximately 2% to 28%. Some of the highest published rates have come from prestigious academic laboratories. The lowest rates are from studies that covered terms of a year or less and in which only small parts of each slide were rescreened or the rescreeners were relatively inexperienced. Before standards for false-negative fractions can be set, we must collect more data and encourage more laboratories to measure the false-negative fraction.

Download full-text PDF

Source

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

false-negative fraction
12
error rates
8
false-negative fractions
8
false-negative
5
fraction papanicolaou
4
papanicolaou smears
4
smears "abnormal"
4
"abnormal" smears
4
smears detected
4
detected "standard"
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!