Page 118 - Screening for Cervical Cancer: Systematic Evidence Review

Appendix C. Evidence Tables

Evidence Table 2. New Methods for Preparing or Evaluating Cervical Cytology

Source: Study Design &
Author, Year Characteristics Interventions Location & Time Period
AutoPap
Colgan et al., Prospective blinded AutoPap 300 QC Ontario, Canada
83
1995 comparison rescreening vs. manual
rescreening among smears Time period not specified
initially categorized as
negative Independent service
cytopathology laboratory

Patten et al., Diagnostic test evaluation AutoPap 300 QC vs. initial US
84
1997b reading
No reference standard. 1997
No histological verification.
Commercial or
hospital/academic laboratories

Lee et al., Diagnostic test evaluation AutoPap primary screening 9 cytopathology laboratories
85
1998 system
c. 1997

Stevens et al., Prospective comparison AutoPap 300 QC vs. Australia
86
1997 random manual
rescreening 1995-1995

Cytology laboratory

C-24