IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssa/v177y2014i1p153-168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of the accuracy of liquid cytology versus conventional screening: a meta-analysis of split-sample studies

Author

Listed:
  • David Epstein
  • Antonio Olry Labry Lima
  • Leticia García Mochón
  • Jaime Espín Balbino
  • Javier Esquivias

Abstract

type="main" xml:id="rssa12005-abs-0001"> 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.

Suggested Citation

  • David Epstein & Antonio Olry Labry Lima & Leticia García Mochón & Jaime Espín Balbino & Javier Esquivias, 2014. "A comparison of the accuracy of liquid cytology versus conventional screening: a meta-analysis of split-sample studies," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 177(1), pages 153-168, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:177:y:2014:i:1:p:153-168
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/rssa.2013.177.issue-1
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:177:y:2014:i:1:p:153-168. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.