CISCO, the article is populist cytologist seems to have errors. Reading down on the article and concentrating on LGSIL, since that is what the anomous author does, it states that the numbers are 367/497 (pap smear/thinprep), indicating the thinprep picked up more cases. It said there was an 18% advantage thinprep, but if you do the math, it's around 35%. The suspicious info though is that biopsy proven LGSIL was 453/430 and of no significance!
But the numbers make no sense. How can you have more biopsy proven cases than screened cases.
Also it makes the comment that blood, mucus, and neutrophils diluted the specimen because they compete with the pores. Since these are smaller than the pores or deform so that they can pass through the pores, and the cells of interest do not, it seems to indicate that the person writing this article does not understand what they are talking about.
THe reference to Ob/Gyn article describes only one study, not the whole study. I do not know the numbers off hand but I also wonder if they have been, whatever. This person is writing off of rumors, and did not even check out how the study was configured.
Also, many others considering using or who have switched to cytyc have conducted their own studies and have their own money at stake.
The second reference is also odd and is not scientific, and in my experience, is totally wrong. |
