Page 130 - Screening for Cervical Cancer: Systematic Evidence Review

Appendix C. Evidence Tables

Evidence Table 2. New Methods for Preparing or Evaluating Cervical Cytology (cont'd)

Source: Study Design &
Author, Year Characteristics Interventions Location & Time Period
Papnet
Kok et al., Diagnostic test evaluation Women randomized to Netherlands
2000 101 of neural network-based receive screening by 1992-1997
screening using Papnet Papnet (245,527) or
compared to traditional Pap traditional Pap (109,104)

Reference standard: 69
patients with biopsy
confirmed carcinoma
Collection method:
Cytobrush

ThinPrep 2000
Corkill et al., Diagnostic test evaluation Conventional Pap vs. Colorado
1997 102 ThinPrep.
Prospective, split sample, Split sample collected with 5/95-6/95 and 3/96-4/96
double-masked trial. cytobrush/spatula
11 planned parenthood clinics
Discrepancies and 5% of
test-negatives verified by
single independent
pathologist only for second
group.
No histologic verification of
test-positives
Lee et al., Diagnostic test evaluation, Conventional Pap vs. US
1997 103 conventional Pap vs. ThinPrep.
ThinPrep Split sample collected with 1996
broom device
ThinPrep clinical trial: 6 6 sites; 3 community clinics and
centers, prospective, split 3 hospitals
sample, double-masked
trial

Discrepancies and 5% of
test-negatives verified by
single independent
pathologist

No histologic verification of
test-positives

C-36