SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kartal Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Tıp Dergisi / 2011 / Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 3

Comparison of Cervicovaginal Pap smear results with clinical parameters

Servikovajinal Pap smear sonuçlarının klinik parametrelerle karşılaştırılması

Nilüfer KADIOĞLU
Seyit Ali KÖSE
Ümran YILDIRIM
Ali Kemal UZUNLAR
Ahmet KARATAŞ
Havva ERDEM
Cem ŞAHİNER
Sare ŞİPAL
Pages
121–126
Publication Date
2022-10-17
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results: It was determined that, in comparison with the normal observation of a diagnosis of inflammation (p=0.0001), inflammation decreased significantly as age increased, that discharge and pain complaints increased (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background: Cervical cancer is the leading cause of cancerrelated death among women in developing countries.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: The smear test results of 1,101 women presenting to our obstetrics clinic in the period 2010-2011were evaluated with retrospective clinical data according to the Bethesda System.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results: It was determined that, in comparison with the normal observation of a diagnosis of inflammation (p=0.0001), inflammation decreased significantly as age increased, that discharge and pain complaints increased (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2010 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background: Cervical cancer is the leading cause of cancerrelated death among women in developing countries. In this article, we evaluated the clinical parameters of female patients presenting to our department and compared them with smear test results. Methods: The smear test results of 1,101 women presenting to our obstetrics clinic in the period 2010-2011were evaluated with retrospective clinical data according to the Bethesda System. Results: It was determined that, in comparison with the normal observation of a diagnosis of inflammation (p=0.0001), inflammation decreased significantly as age increased, that discharge and pain complaints increased (p

Özet

Amaç: Serviks kanseri, gelişmekte olan ülkelerde kadınlarda kansere bağlı ölümlerin önde gelen nedenidir. Bu makalede, bölümümüze başvuran kadın hastaların klinik parametrelerini değerlendirerek, smear sonuçları ile karşılaştırmak istedik. Gereç ve Yöntem: Kadın doğum polikliniğimize 2010-2011 yılı arası başvuran 1101 kadının Bethesda sistemine göre değerlendirilen smear sonuçları, retrospektif klinik verilerle değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Yaş arttıkça enflamasyon tanısının normal izlenmesine oranla anlamlı olarak azaldığı (p=0.001), akıntıağrı şikayetinin anlamlı olarak arttığı (p

🔖

Cite This Article

KADIOĞLU, N., KÖSE, S. A., YILDIRIM, Ü., UZUNLAR, A. K., KARATAŞ, A., ERDEM, H., ŞAHİNER, C., ŞİPAL, S. (2022). Comparison of Cervicovaginal Pap smear results with clinical parameters. Kartal Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 3, 121–126. https://ajindex.com/articles/571476

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Waxman AG. Guidelines for cervical cancer screening, history and scientific rationale. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2005;48(1):77-97
  2. Wilson CM, Tobin S, Young RC. The exploding worldwide cancer burden: the impact of cancer on women. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2004;14(1):1-11
  3. Papanicolaou GN, Traut HF. The diagnostic value of vaginal smears in carcinoma of the uterus. 1941. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997;121(3):211-24
  4. Koss LG. The Papanicolaou test for cervical cancer detection. A triumph and a tragedy. JAMA 1989;261(5):737-43
  5. Kuo DY, Goldberg GL. Screening of cervical cancer: where do we go from here? Cancer Invest 2003;21(1):157-61
  6. Apgar BS, Zoschnick L, Wright TC Jr. The 2001 Bethesda System terminology. Am Fam Physician 2003;68(10):1992-8
  7. Türk Sağlık Bakanlığı, kanser kayıt istatistikleri 2004- 2006. (Ulaşım adresi: www.kanser.gov.tr.)
  8. Greening SE. Errors in cervical smears: minimizing the risk of medicolegal consequences. Monogr Pathol 1997;(39):16-39
  9. Richart RM, Vaillant HW. The irrigation smear; false-negative rates in a population with cervical neoplasia. JAMA 1965;19(192):199-202
  10. Burger RA, Creasman WT, DiSaia PJ, Monk BJ, Mutch DG. Invasive cervical cancer. In: DiSaia PJ, Creasman WT, editors. Klinik jinekolojik onkoloji. 6th ed. Ankara: Güneş Kitabevi; 2003. p. 53-111
  11. Ayinde AE, Adewole IF, Babarinsa IA. Trends in cervical cancer screening in Ibadan, Nigeria: a four-year review. West Afr J Med 1998;17(1):25-30
  12. Fallani MG, Pena C, Fambrini M, Marchionni M. Cervical cytologic reports of ASCUS and LSIL. Cyto-histological correlation and implication for management. Minerva Ginecol 2002;54(3):263-9
  13. Liu J, Song XH, Wang QX. Clinical significance of atypical squamous cells and low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions in cervical smear. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi 2007;87(25):1764-6
  14. Ersöz Ş, Reis A, Baki N. Cervical screening programme in Trabzon country. Türk Jinekoloji ve Obstetrik Derneği Dergisi (TJOD Derg) 2010;7(1):35-9
  15. Karabulut A, Alan T, Ekiz AM, Iritaş A, Kesen Z, Yahşi S. Evaluation of cervical screening results in a population at normal risk. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2010;110(1):40-2
  16. Fiorino AS. Intrauterine contraceptive device-associated actinomycotic abscess and Actinomyces detection on cervical smear. Obstet Gynecol 1996;87(1):142-9
  17. Malkawi SR, Abu Hazeem RM, Hajjat BM, Hajjiri FK. Evaluation of cervical smears at King Hussein Medical Centre, Jordan, over three and a half years. East Medite