<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">M. Arbyn</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bergeron, Christine</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Klinkhamer, Paul</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Martin-Hirsch, Pierre</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Siebers, Albertus G</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bulten, Johan</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Obstet Gynecol</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Obstet Gynecol</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Colposcopy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Female</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Humans</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mass Screening</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sensitivity and Specificity</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">specimen handling</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Uterine Cervical Neoplasms</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vaginal Smears</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2008 Jan</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">111</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">167-77</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;OBJECTIVE: &lt;/b&gt;To compare test performance characteristics of conventional Pap tests and liquid-based cervical cytology samples.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;DATA SOURCES: &lt;/b&gt;Eligible studies, published between 1991 and 2007, were retrieved through PubMed/EmBase searching and completed by consultation of other sources.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: &lt;/b&gt;Studies were selected if a conventional and a liquid-based sample were prepared from the same woman or when one or the other type of sample was taken from a separate but similar cohort. The current systematic review and meta-analysis is restricted to studies where all subjects were submitted to gold standard verification, based on colposcopy and histology of colposcopy-targeted biopsies, allowing computation of absolute and relative test validity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse. Randomized trials were selected as well if all test-positive cases were verified with the same gold standard, allowing computation of the relative sensitivity. Impact of study characteristics on accuracy was assessed by subgroup meta-analyses, meta-regression, and summary receiver operating characteristic curve regression.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: &lt;/b&gt;The relative sensitivity, pooled from eight studies, with complete gold standard verification and from one randomized clinical trial, did not differ significantly from unity. Also, the specificity, considering high-grade and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions as cutoff, was similar in conventional and liquid cytology. However, a lower pooled specificity was found for liquid-based cytology when presence of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance was the cutoff (ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.84-0.98). Differences in study characteristics did not explain interstudy heterogeneity.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;CONCLUSION: &lt;/b&gt;Liquid-based cervical cytology is neither more sensitive nor more specific for detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia compared with the conventional Pap test.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18165406?dopt=Abstract</style></custom1></record></records></xml>