Object: In the present study, we compared the positive cytodiagnostic test rates with discrepancies usingself-collection devices for cervical cancer screening. We made this survey to examine whether or not our selfsmearpreparation method using the Kato self-collection device contributed to an improved rate of detectingatypical cells compared with existing recommended preparation methods. Methods: Specimens were collected at14 facilities handling self-collection methods, and samples were collected by a physician in 2 facilities. The chisquaredtest was performed using the SPSS ver. 20 statistical software to determine the relationships between thepositive cytodiagnostic rate, specimen preparation methods, and self-collection devices. Results: Collecting cellsusing the Kato self-collection device and preparing liquid-based specimens, we obtained a significantly higherrate of positive cytodiagnosis and our results were equal to those obtained with the direct method. Conclusions:Taking into consideration increased needs for screening using the self-collection method in future, with evenmore improved test accuracy, a screening test that is acceptable to society needs to be established.
(2012). Improved Accuracy of Cytodiagnosis using the Kato Self-Collection Devise: the Usefulness of Smear Preparation in Liquid-based Cytology Methods. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 13(9), 4521-4524.
MLA
. "Improved Accuracy of Cytodiagnosis using the Kato Self-Collection Devise: the Usefulness of Smear Preparation in Liquid-based Cytology Methods". Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 13, 9, 2012, 4521-4524.
HARVARD
(2012). 'Improved Accuracy of Cytodiagnosis using the Kato Self-Collection Devise: the Usefulness of Smear Preparation in Liquid-based Cytology Methods', Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 13(9), pp. 4521-4524.
VANCOUVER
Improved Accuracy of Cytodiagnosis using the Kato Self-Collection Devise: the Usefulness of Smear Preparation in Liquid-based Cytology Methods. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 2012; 13(9): 4521-4524.