PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11578516

The LonStenn-a new cervical sampling device.

Abstract

A new cervical sampling device, the 'LonStenn' was evaluated against devices in common use: the Cervex Brush, and the CytoBrush plus Ayres Spatula, by comparing the number of cells removed from the cervix and the number released from the device onto a glass slide. One hundred and eighty patients were studied. Ninety patients had Papanicolaou (Pap) smears, and at the same examination, colposcopy and biopsies, with 30 patients being allocated to each of the three sampling methods. After the plating of the Pap smear, the 'head' of the device was cut off and placed in a vial of Tyrode saline solution and vortexed. The residual cells remaining in the saline solution were counted in a Kova Slide Chamber. This allowed assessment of one possible cause of false negatives (ie, cell entrapment). A control group of 90 patients, with 30 allocated to each device, had Pap smears taken which were not plated out: the head of the device was removed and again placed in Tyrode saline solution. The cells harvested from the cervix were counted by the same method as before. The subtraction of the cells from the plated-out group from the control (nonplated out) group gave an indication of the number of cells delivered to the slide for cytological evaluation. The LonStenn is shown to be more efficient in its quantitative delivery of representative harvested cells from the cervix to a glass slide for cytological analysis. Qualitative assessment of smears prepared from this device suggested an improvement, as indicated by less blood staining. This should also ultimately be reflected by a decrease in false negatives in the laboratory.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

H.M. Stenning, D.B.B. Stenning, G.R. Rajasekariah, M. Stadler-Prelec, V. Gebski. 1995. The LonStenn-a new cervical sampling device.. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1438.1995.05060426.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗