Authors' objectives: a) To assess the efficacy and effectiveness of automated reading versus manual reading of cytologies (conventional or LBC) in cervical cancer screening. b) To evaluate the productivity of automated slide reading versus manual slide reading. c) To assess the cost-effectiveness ratio of automation- assisted slide reading.

Authors' recommendations: Automated reading of cytology has not shown higher sensitivity than manual reading to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade II (CIN2)or worse lesions, regardless of the automation-assisted device and the technique of cytology sampling (conventional or liquid-based cytology). Automated reading of cytology has not shown higher specificity than manual reading to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade II (CIN2) or worse lesions, regardless of the automation-assisted system and the type of cytology sample (conventional or liquid-based cytology). The productivity of automated reading of cytology was higher than manual reading, in terms of reading time and number of slides read per hour or per day. According to the results of studies conducted in the context of organised cervical cancer screening programmes, automated reading of liquid-based cytology was less cost-effective than manual reading for any type of cytology (liquid or conventional). According to the published results, the use of automated reading systems currently available can not be recommended for the detection of cervical precancerous lesions. In our setting, where a common organised screening programme is not available, it is recommendable that prior to the implementation of automated reading systems, studies should be conducted to determine its feasibility and organisational repercussions: choice of cytology sampling technique; assessment of the centralizing cytological reading in reference laboratories, professional training on automated reading, adequacy of screening protocol and quality control of cytology reading, monitoring the productivity of automated cytology reading; assessment of false positive results and its repercussion on referral to diagnostic tests, assessment of false negative results and its impact on diagnostic and therapeutic delay, etc.

Project Status: Completed

Year Published: 2013

URL for published report: http://www.sergas.es/Docs/Avalia-t/avalia-t201301Lecturaautomatizada.pdf

English language abstract: An English language summary is available

Publication Type: Not Assigned

Country: Spain

Organisation Name: Scientific Advice Unit, avalia-t; The Galician Health Knowledge Agency (ACIS)

Contact Address: Conselleria de Sanidade, Xunta de Galicia, San Lazaro s/n 15781 Santiago de Compostela, Spain. Tel: 34 981 541831; Fax: 34 981 542854;

Contact Name: avalia-t@sergas.es

Contact Email: avalia-t@sergas.es

Copyright: Galician Agency for Health Technology Assessment (AVALIA-T)